Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA (EMPEROR HAILE SELASSIE).

Mr. Mander: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to make a statement about the situation in Abyssinia, and the position of the Emperor Haile Selassie?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The Emperor of Abyssinia has returned to Africa. As regards the situation in Ethopia, it would be premature to make any statement at the present time.

Mr. Mander: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that all possible moral and physical support will be given to the Emperor and his people as friends and Allies?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I recently gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), in which I said that contact had been established and that all the details involved are under active consideration.

Mr. Mander: Did not my right hon. Friend say in that statement that he recognised the Emperor as an ally?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the terms of my statement, he will see exactly what I said.

Oral Answers to Questions — BELGIAN GOVERNMENT.

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present composition of the Belgian Government, its status and where it is situated?

Mr. Butler: So far as I am aware the composition of the Belgian Government has not been altered since the invasion of the Low Countries on 10th May. There has been no change in its status since it assumed by a Ministerial Decree dated 28th May the sovereign powers of the King, who was declared under Article 82 of the Belgian Constitution to be a prisoner in the hands of the enemy and as such incapable of reigning. The Ministers are believed to be in unoccupied France with the exception of the Minister of the Colonies and the Minister of Health.

Mr. Watkins: How many members of that Government are now in this country?

Mr. Butler: There were recently two, and one may still be here.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

NORTHERN IRELAND (DEFENCE).

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, taking into account the situation of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom, he will take every precaution to see that it is so guarded as to be able to repel every attack of the enemy from the air?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Yes, Sir.

OFFICERS, AIR MINISTRY.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will give the names, rank, and remuneration, including rations and other allowances, of the officers attached to A.I.6. at the Air Ministry, together with their previous occupations and flying qualifications?

Captain Balfour: At present 10 officers are employed in the branch referred to by the hon. Member, the total annual cost of their emoluments being £6,000. One of them has flying qualifications. It would not be in the public interest to give any further information which might assist in the identification of officers employed in this or any other Branch of the Directorate of Air Intelligence.

Mr. Hall: Has the Under-Secretary assured himself that these officers really are doing work which they should be doing and which could not be done by people who are paid much less and are not officers?

Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir, the officers of this branch perform responsible functions with distinct satisfaction to my right hon. Friend.

AIR DEFENCE CADET CORPS.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Air what assistance is given by his Department to the Air Defence Cadet Corps?

Captain Balfour: The various forms of assistance received by the Air Defence Cadet Corps have recently been reviewed. Particulars of the arrangements now in force are contained in a comprehensive statement published as an Air Ministry Order on 18th July, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. This Order has been brought to the attention of those concerned both in the Royal Air Force and in the Air Defence Cadet Corps.

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (ALUMINIUM).

Mr. Barnes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production whether it is the intention to pay compensation for aluminium stock in the possession of wholesalers and retailers which is requisitioned; and, if so, upon what basis will such compensation be paid?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Colonel Llewellin): As I explained in answer to a Question last week, my Noble Friend does not at present intend to requisition stocks in the hands of wholesalers and retailers. The question of compensation does not therefore arise.

Mr. Mander: Has any census been taken of stocks held by wholesalers, retailers and manufacturers?

Colonel Llewellin: No complete census has yet been taken, but the issue of aluminium for this kind of purpose was stopped in the very early days of the war, and there is not as much in the hands of wholesalers and retailers as a large number of people imagine.

Mr. Mander: Would not it be very desirable, in view of the urgent need of aluminium, to make a census and find out what is available?

Colonel Llewellin: As soon as we need the aluminium we shall certainly have a

census, or take it without, but until we need that particular aluminium there would be no point in putting firms to the trouble of making returns.

Mr. Mander: Is it to be understood that the Government do not want aluminium at the present time?

Colonel Llewellin: No, certainly not.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production whether he will issue a specification for secondary aluminium; and is he aware that the United States of America, Germany, and Switzerland have all issued proper specifications for secondary aluminium many years ago?

Mr. Brooke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production whether he is aware that scientific utilisation of aluminium scrap for the partial replacement of alloys derived from virgin metal has been more actively developed abroad than in this country, and that with proper organising of scrap collection in factories, and slight modifying of certain specifications, large tonnages of scrap already available here could be utilised for aircraft manufacture with no loss of efficiency and with important economy in the consumption of virgin aluminium; and if he will take action accordingly?

Colonel Llewellin: I am not aware that foreign countries are in advance of our own in the utilisation of aluminium scrap, but if either of my hon. Friends has any fresh information as to the methods used in such countries I shall certainly be glad to have it. Steps have been taken to ensure the proper collection of aluminium scrap in aircraft factories, and the Aluminium Controller possesses adequate powers to ensure that the process of collection is carried on to the best advantage. Two specifications which permit the employment of secondary aluminium have already been issued and the preparation of further specifications is now in hand.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production whether he will appoint an executive officer with a small advisory committee to be responsible for the issue of war-time specifications of secondary aluminium and their adoption by Government Departments, for the


further organisation of scrap collection in aeroplane and munition works, and the distribution to approved remelters according to their capacity?

Colonel Llewellin: There is already in existence a small committee, the Secondary Metals Committee of the Light Alloys Control, which deals with the preparation and issue of such specifications. As I said in answer to the last Question, the collection of scrap in aircraft works is now well organised, and the Aluminium Controller possesses powers which are adequate to ensure that the process of collection is carried on to the best advantage.

Mr. Charles Brown: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production whether any considerable quantity of the aluminium now being collected by his Department, from housewives and others, is suitable for manufacture into alloys which could be rolled, extruded or forged?

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that there are many aluminium alloys and that their precise nature can only be determined by analysis; and does he think it a practical proposition to have an analysis of all the varieties of scrap that are being collected? Is it a valuable contribution to our war effort to have this publicity stunt?

Colonel Llewellin: It is not a publicity stunt at all. All the stock of rolled aluminium that we have now will be of the greatest value to us, and if the new method which we hope to perfect in the course of a few weeks comes to hand so will the collection which we have made.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister agree that this is apt to give a misleading impression abroad?

Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir; I made it clear in an answer that we have enough aluminium for our present aircraft programme, but that we are looking ahead. We are very much indebted to the people who have given us their pots, pans and other things. I hope that nothing will be said in the House to make them think that they have given in vain.

Sir Francis Fremantle: How are we to know what is rolled aluminium? Are my shoe-trees rolled aluminium?

Colonel Llewellin: If my hon. Friend will send them to me, I will let him know.

Sir F. Fremantle: I sent them a week ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

HEADQUARTERS STAFF.

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Minister of Information whether he will arrange to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the headquarters staff of the Ministry as on 1st July, 1940, other than clerical and messengers, stating the salary of each officer and a statement of his previous occupation?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): Yes, Sir, I will place a copy of the list as previously furnished revised to 22nd July, 1940, in the Library of the House.

BROADCAST AIR FIGHT.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that, on 14th July, the British Broadcasting Corporation gave a broadcast description of the air fight over the Straits of Dover; whether official permission was given for this broadcast to be made; and whether he will secure that, in future, the public taste shall not be offended by broadcasts of war operations in the manner of a sporting commentary?

Mr. Cooper: The answers to the first two parts of the Question are in the affirmative. With regard to the last part of the Question, I am aware that there was considerable division of opinion as to the taste of the broadcast in question, but I am not prepared to give an undertaking of the nature suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Bernays: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this broadcast gave the public increased confidence in the ability of the Air Force to defend these shores and showed that we are not a nation of "Cissies"?

Mr. Stokes: While agreeing with what the right hon. Gentleman said, may I ask whether he is aware that the nature of this broadcast is regarded among many people as being according to pagan and not Christian principles?

Captain Vyvyan Adams: Did not this broadcast precisely and brilliantly depict


the spirit of our anti-aircraft defenders which is so vital to our success?

Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the principal theatre in Liverpool where the broadcast was given the audience responded right loyally?

CENSORSHIP (MAGAZINES AND BOOKS).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Information whether his recent declarations concerning the maintenance of the liberty of the Press extends to magazines and books?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Strauss: Can the right hon. Gentleman discourage newsagents and booksellers, particularly those who have a virtual monopoly, from exercising a private political censorship of their own by banning certain books?

Mr. Cooper: I have no powers over the action taken independently by newsagents and booksellers.

Mr. Strauss: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is contrary to the spirit of his recent declarations?

Mr. George Griffiths: Did the right hon. Gentleman tell the book stores at King's Cross that they were not to sell me that book, "Guilty Men"?

Mr. Cooper: No, Sir.

LEAFLETS OVER FRANCE.

Mr. Radford: asked the Minister of Information whether he will arrange for the dropping over France of leaflets containing information as to the real facts concerning the French fleet, such leaflets to be written by the eminent French editors and others who are refugees in this country and whose names will carry conviction to millions of the French people?

Mr. Cooper: Leaflets containing information both in regard to the Armistice terms and in regard to the French fleet have already been dropped over France. It is proposed to continue and extend the dropping of leaflets over France with a view to keeping the French people informed of the real facts of the situation. The possibility of securing the services of prominent Frenchmen for this purpose is under consideration.

ENEMY NEWS BROADCASTS.

Mr. Woolley: asked the Minister of Information whether, in view of his advice that the public should not listen to enemy news broadcasts, many of which contain definite falsehoods, he will ask the Press to refrain from publishing reports of such broadcasts, since their publication can only serve the purpose of the enemy?

Mr. Cooper: Thanks very largely to the manner in which the Press have dealt with enemy news broadcasts and to the thoroughness with which, in co-operation with the various Departments of the Government, they have exposed and are continuing to expose the many falsehoods these broadcasts contain, I have no doubt whatever that they are thoroughly discredited with the general public, and I do not think that any special measures are called for.

Mr. Woolley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the enemy broadcasts and official communiqués make unfounded claims of British losses, particularly at sea, and that the publication of such news causes considerable suffering and unnecessary anxiety to relatives of those who might be involved were the news correct?

Mr. Cooper: I know that these broadcasts contain many falsehoods, and I think it undesirable to encourage people and desirable to discourage them listening to them, but I do not think people should be stopped from listening to them.

FAR-EASTERN BUREAU.

Sir S. Reed: asked the Minister of Information what are the functions of the Far-Eastern Bureau of the Ministry; and in what respect they differ from those already performed by the Governors, Ambassadors, and their staffs, including in some cases special publicity officers, already stationed at Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and other centres in the Far East?

Mr. Cooper: The chief functions of the Far-Eastern Bureau, which shares offices with the Hong Kong Department of Information, are to co-ordinate the activities of all Far-Eastern posts and to deal with problems that are common to the whole area, such as enemy propaganda, counter-propaganda, broadcasting, films, etc. It also arranges for the local production of suitable material and its distribution in the Far East.

PHOTOGRAPHS.

Sir S. Reed: asked the Minister of Information whether arrangements will be made to place articles and photographs, furnished by the Ministry for the newspapers, in the Library for the convenience of Members; and, in particular, the photographs issued by the Ministry, on Friday, 12th July, in connection with the chatterbox campaign?

Mr. Cooper: A selection of photographs issued by the Ministry to the Press, including the photographs referred to by the hon. Member, has been placed in the Tea Room.

ENEMY PROPAGANDA, EUROPE.

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Information whether, in view of the intensive campaign being undertaken by German propaganda at the present time among European conquered and neutral peoples, showing the economic advantages of an economically united Europe, steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to counteract this and show what type of Europe the Allies wish to see established?

Mr. Cooper: The enemy propaganda referred to in the Question is being carefully watched by His Majesty's Government. I am not in a position at present to make any statement with regard to the steps that are being taken to counteract it.

Mr. Garro Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that the special aspects of propaganda among conquered peoples will be dealt with at an early date, in view of the activities of German broadcasting stations?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Thorne: Is it possible to persuade Herr Hitler to get married to a sensible woman?

NEWSPAPER DISTRIBUTION (EMER- GENCY ARRANGEMENTS).

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Information whether any arrangements have been made in the event of any region or portion of this country being cut off during enemy invasion, involving the non-arrival in the area of any of our national newspapers, to secure the distribution of such newspapers as can be published in the area on as wide a

scale as possible, or what other arrangements are contemplated in order to secure, in any emergency, free and uncontrolled expression of opinion and comment as well as accurate presentation of news?

Mr. Cooper: I understand that adequate arrangements have been made both by the national and provincial newspapers upon their own account in order to secure distribution during such a period of emergency as is envisaged. The main task of the Ministry of Information would be to assist the Press in obtaining early and accurate information. Steps have been taken to ensure that this shall be done. The hon. Member will no doubt agree that it would not be in the public interest to make these emergency arrangements generally known.

LIGHTHOUSES.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. GARRO JONES:

27. To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what authority exists for operating or extinguishing lighthouses to meet considerations which are the concern of the Admiralty, the War Office and the Ministry of Home Security, respectively; and who decides whether lighthouses are to be put out or not?

Mr. Garro Jones: On a point of Order. May I refer to this Question before putting it? Without wishing to add to the difficulties of the senior Ministers of the Crown, I addressed this Question to the Prime Minister—to be answered, no doubt, by the Lord Privy Seal—as it occurred to me to be pre-eminently a Question in which there was a balance of responsibility between three Government Departments. For example, lighthouses which are lit in order to guide convoys to certain channels can also guide enemy aircraft to attack civilian populations for which I have a special responsibility in the House. I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you can, in your wisdom and discretion, ask Ministers to consider very carefully before they lightly reject Questions, which, after full consideration, have been addressed to the Prime Minister, and place them before a Department which is not able to take every aspect of the question into account, as in this case?

Mr. Speaker: My powers as regards that matter are limited. Questions must go to the Departments which are concerned with the subject.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): Under Defence Regulation 44 the Admiralty gives directions for operating or extinguishing navigational lights on the coasts of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The requirements of the Service and Civil Departments concerned are fully considered in reaching decisions.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask the hon. Baronet whether, apart from the consideration which is given to the requirements of other Departments by the Admiralty, there is consultation with the other Departments concerned, in particular the Department of Home Security?

Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that quite simple and effective machinery exists for paying proper attention to any representations which come before us.

Mr. Garro Jones: With great respect, that does not meet my point. May I ask whether, before authority is given for the maintenance of lighthouses by the Admiralty, the Admiralty consult the Department of Home Security, the Air Ministry and others responsible for Civil Defence?

Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir. I said in my original answer that in reaching a decision as to the maintenance or extinguishing of lights the interests and representations of other Departments are fully considered.

Mr. Garro Jones: With great respect, my point is not being met, and I want an answer to it. To say that interests are considered is not to say that the Departments are consulted. The initiative rests entirely with the Admiralty, according to the hon. Baronet's answer. I should like an assurance that the other Departments are actually consulted and their opinions sought.

Sir V. Warrender: I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. If the hon. Member would prefer me to use the word "consultation," I will do so. In reaching decisions the interests of other Departments are considered and they are consulted.

Sir William Davison: The Ministry said so before—half-a-dozen times.

CYPRUS (LAND CULTIVATION).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether steps have been taken drastically to increase cultivation in Cyprus and to make land available to dispossessed peasants; and whether the necessary action has been taken to secure a sufficient supply of essential foodstuffs to the Cypriot people?

Mr. George Hall: The cultivation of foodstuffs is the main agricultural activity in Cyprus, and measures have been taken by the Government to encourage the widest possible utilisation of cultivable areas, and the provision of seed-wheat and potatoes has been arranged for on special terms. The Governor reports that dispossessed peasants form only a small minority of the rural population, who are protected in this respect by legislation. With regard to the second part of the Question, the food situation in Cyprus, as in all Colonies, is kept constantly under review, and arrangements have been made to conserve supplies of essential foodstuffs. The arrangements already made will be supplemented if and when occasion requires.

COLONIAL EMPIRE (WAR GIFTS).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will publish as a White Paper the contributions which have been made by the Colonial Empire towards the war effort, including contributions of money, aircraft, Red Cross, etc.?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): Since the outbreak of war a large number of generous and valuable gifts, both in cash and in kind, have been made by Colonial Governments, and private individuals and organisations, both to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war and to various war charities. The cash gifts, including loans free of interest, but not including gifts in kind, amount to over £9,250,000. The list of these gifts is a very long one and, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will accordingly circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is it the case that some of the Colonies have declared that they no longer need the money which has been provided for the Colonial Development Fund?

Mr. Hall: No, Sir, that is not quite so. Some of the Colonies say that they will not proceed with any development which will entitle them to make application for a grant during the period of the war.

MONETARY AND OTHER GIFTS MADE BY COLONIAL GOVERNMENTS, NATIVE RULERS, VARIOUS BODIES AND INDIVIDUALS IN THE COLONIAL EMPIRE TO HIS MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT AND ORGANISATIONS DURING THE WAR.


3rd SEPTEMBER, 1939–17th JULY, 1940.


ADEN.


From His Highness the Sultan of Mukalla to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (September, 1939)
Rs. 20,000 (£1,500)


From His Highness the Sultan of Lahej to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (December, 1939)
Rs. 13,500 (£1,012 10s.)



£
s.
d.


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
254
15
0


Privately subscribed to King George's Fund for Sailors
100
0
0


BAHAMAS.


From the Government of Bahamas to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (September, 1939, and January, 1940)
22,000
0
0


From Sir Harry and Lady Oakes of Nassau, to His Majesty's Government for the purchase of a fighter aircraft
5,000
0
0


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
14,510
0
0


Privately subscribed to King George's Fund for Sailors
1,444
0
0


From a local Citizens' Committee:


600 gallons of preserves and 750 gallons of lime juice


to His Majesty's Government as a contribution to supplies in the United Kingdom.


From the Bahamas Red Cross Society (through the West India Committee) to the Central Hospital Supply Service and His Majesty's Forces:


78 consignments of hospital supplies.


68 consignment of hospital supplies and knitted comforts.

Mr. Bevan: Does that mean that native populations will not get the benefit of that development?

Mr. Hall: No, Sir.

Following is the list:


BARBADOS.



£
s.
d.


From the Government of Barbados to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (October, 1939)
25,000
0
0


From the Government of Barbados to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (June, 1940)
100,000
0
0


A fund called "Win the War" has been opened and voluntary subscriptions exceed (June, 1940)
12,000
0
0


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
915
6
8


Privately subscribed to King George's Fund for Sailors
300
0
0


From Barbados Voluntary War Workers (through the West India Committee) to the Central Hospital Supply Service and His Majesty's Forces:


9 cases of hospital supplies and knitted comforts.


From the Barbados Produce Exporters Association to His Majesty's Canadian Forces:


100 barrels of Molasses.


BERMUDA.


From an Englishman settled in Bermuda, to the local Government for the prosecution of the war (March, 1940)
10,000
0
0


From the Government of Bermuda to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (May, 1940)
40,000
0
0


From the Corporation of the City of Hamilton to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (June, 1940)
1,000
0
0


Privately subscribed to the Bermuda War Fund (up to 8th June, 1940)
11,000
0
0


Privately subscribed at an Empire Fete in April, 1940. (£1,100 has been spent on the purchase of ambulances for service in France)
3,396
7
11






BERMUDA—cont.



£
s.
d.


Privately subscribed to St. Dunstan's
100
0
0


1,500 tons of scrap metal have been shipped to the United Kingdom.


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross Society by Mr. and Mrs. Gibbons and members of Gibbons Company of Bermuda, for the purchase of 5 military ambulances (June, 1940)
2,750
0
0


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
1,367
0
0


BRITISH GUIANA.


From Mr. Boodhoo, an East Indian rice grower at Demerara, to His Majesty's Forces:


5,000 pounds of rice (25 bags).


From Mr. R. G. Humphrey:


A collection of old gold coins and a gold snuff box.


Proceeds of sale to be devoted to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund.


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
6,010
0
0


Privately subscribed to His Majesty's Government through a local committee formed in June, 1940, to raise funds for the purchase of military aircraft
40,000
0
0


BRITISH HONDURAS.


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
1,000
0
0


From local organisations (through the West India Committee) to the Central Hospital Supply Service and His Majesty's Forces:—


2 cases of hospital supplies and knitted comforts.


CEYLON.


From the Government of Ceylon to His Majesty's Government for the purchase of aircraft (June, 1940)
Rs. 5,000,000 (£375,000)



£
s.
d.


From the "Uva Club" and "New Zealander" through the "Times of Ceylon" to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war
107
13
6





CEYLON—cont.



£
s.
d.


From Mr. and Mrs. L. W. F. de Saram of Ceylon, two gifts of £5,000 each to His Majesty's Government for the purchase of aircraft (June-July, 1940)
10,000
0
0


Privately subscribed to His Majesty's Government through the "Times of Ceylon" for the purchase of fighter aircraft (June, 1940) 
30,000
0
0


From the Colombo Municipal Council to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (July, 1940)
15,000
0
0


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
13,505
0
0


Privately subscribed to King George's Fund for Sailors
239
0
0


Privately subscribed to the Shipwrecked Fishermen and Mariners' Royal Benevolent Society:—


Through the Nuwara Eliya Golf Club
60
0
0


Through the Irish Association of Ceylon
38
8
5


From the Hospital Supply Association, Ceylon, to the Central Hospital Supply Service, London:—


Garments, etc. (1,376).


Bandages and surgeons' masks, etc. (836).


Swabs (1,167).


CYPRUS.


Privately subscribed to His Majesty's Government through the "Cyprus Fighter Plane Fund" inaugurated by the "Cyprus Post" in June, 1940
1,250
0
0


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
3,500
0
0


From Mr. N. Phylactou to a charity connected with the Royal Air Force
2
0
0


From Mr. C. Haggipavlou, O.B.E., Mayor of Limassol, to the family of the first British soldier killed in France
10
0
0


FALKLAND ISLANDS.


From the Government of the Falkland Islands to His Majesty's Government for the purchase of aircraft (June, 1940)
50,000
0
0


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
1,175
0
0


FIJI.


From the Colonial Sugar Refining Company to the Government of Fiji for the prosecution of the war (November, 1939)
2,500
0
0






FIJI—cont.


The Colonial Sugar Refining Company have leased to the Crown for 99 years freehold land, for use as an aircraft landing ground, at a peppercorn rental (December, 1939).


Privately subscribed to His Majesty's Government through local fund, inaugurated on 9th July, for the purchase of military aircraft
£ 45,000 (Fiji) = (£40,540 10s. 9d.)



£
s.
d.


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
5,044
15
7


The sum of £100 has been returned to New Zealand for the Red Cross appeal by 600 lepers at Makogia, Fiji. (This sum is half of the amount which was collected in the Dominion for the lepers)
100
0
0


GAMBIA.


Privately subscribed to:—


British Red Cross and St. John Fund
30
0
0


King George's Fund for Sailors
150
0
0


GIBRALTAR.


Privately subscribed through a committee of local citizens to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (January-March, 1940)
30,007
0
8


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
1,117
18
3


GOLD COAST.


From the Government of the Gold Coast to the "Gold Coast Fund for War Charities"
4,000
0
0


From the "Gold Coast Fund for War Charities" to:—


British Red Cross and St. John Fund
6,000
0
0


Other charities (details not available)
1,133
9
6


From the Government of the Gold Coast to His Majesty's Government for the purchase of bomber and fighter aircraft (June, 1940) 
100,000
0
0


From the Government of the Gold Coast to His Majesty's Government for the purchase of bomber and fighter aircraft—Loan of £500,000 for the duration of the war, free of interest (June, 1940).


From the "Gold Coast Spitfire Fund" (inaugurated in June, 1940) to His Majesty's Government for the purchase of aircraft
20,000
0
0





GOLD COAST—cont.



£
s.
d.


From three West Indian residents in the Gold Coast (Mr. G. A. Busby of Suhum, Dr. R. A. Hoyte of Nsawam, and Mr. G. Francois of Tafo—£100 each) to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (July. 1940)
300
0
0


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund through the British Red Cross Society, Accra
190
5
0


HONG KONG.


From the Government of Hong Kong to His Majesty's Government for the provision of 4 mine-sweeping vessels which are being built in Hong Kong
$5,000,000 (£375,000)



£
s.
d.


From the Government of Hong Kong to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (March, 1940)
100,000
0
0


From the Government of Hong Kong to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (June, 1940)
100,000
0
0


Privately subscribed to His Majesty's Government through the "South China Morning Post" and the "Hong Kong Telegraph" for the purchase of aircraft (June-July, 1940)
80,350
0
0


From Sir Robert Ho Tung to His Majesty's Government—Loan of £10,000 for 2 years free of interest (November, 1939).


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
20,234
12
10


JAMAICA.


Privately subscribed through the Jamaica Central War Assistance Committee to:


The British Red Cross and St. John Fund
31,005
16
3


Y.M.C.A. War Service Fund
500
0
0


King George's Fund for Sailors
5,100
0
0


From the Jamaica Central War Assistance Committee (through the West India Committee) to the Central Hospital Supply Service and His Majesty's Forces:


31 cases of hospital supplies.






JAMAICA—cont.



£
s.
d.


2 cases of hospital supplies and knitted comforts.


5 cases of knitted comforts.


6,000 cases of Citrus:


3,154 cases to the British Expeditionary Force).


1,639 cases to the Royal Navy.


1,207 cases to the Royal Air Force.


8 cases of Preserves (to the British Expeditionary Force).


3 cases of Confectionery.


202 barrels of Coffee (to British Expeditionary Force, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force).


1,680 cases of Rum (12 bottles each = 20,160 bottles) to His Majesty's Forces.


Collected by the children of Jamaica on the occasion of the anniversary of the birthday of Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth as a donation to a war charity in which the Princess is interested
100
0
0


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
169
7
8


From Dr. Sinclair (through the West India Committee) to His Majesty's Forces:


228 packets of Kentucky Tobacco.


From Messrs. H. O. Merren and Company of Georgetown, Grand Cayman, to the Royal Navy:


50 live Turtles.


Privately subscribed to His Majesty's Government through "The Gleaner" for the purchase of bombing planes (June-July, 1940)
25,000
0
0


KENYA.


From Sheikh Sir Aid bin Salim, K.B.E., C.M.G., to the Admiralty for the purchase of Christmas presents for children of naval personnel who had lost their lives in the present war (December, 1939) 
200
0
0





KENYA—cont.



£
s.
d.


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
2,034
2
0


Privately subscribed through the Kenya War Welfare Fund to:


British Red Cross and St. John Fund
2,000
0
0


King George's Fund for Sailors
1,000
0
0


Royal Naval Benevolent Fund
250
0
0


Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund
300
0
0


Royal National Lifeboat Institution
350
0
0


St. Dunstan's
400
0
0


Church Army
125
0
0


Salvation Army
125
0
0


Young Men's Christian Association
125
0
0


Missions to Seamen
50
0
0


From sub-Assistant Surgeon Gur Bux Singh, Kenya Medical Department, to the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust for the relief of families of those lost in British submarines
5
0
0


From the Swahili Community at Eldama Ravine, Kenya, to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war
1
12
0


Privately subscribed to His Majesty's Government through the Kenya Central War Fund inaugurated in June, 1940, to further the successful prosecution of the war (first instalment July, 1940)
10,000
0
0


From the Kenya—Uganda Railway and Harbour Administration to His Majesty's Government—Loan of £100,000 for the duration of the war, free of interest (July, 1940).


LEEWARD ISLANDS.


Antigua.


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
52
0
0


From local organisations (through the West India Committee) to the Central Hospital Supply Service:—


7 consignments of hospital supplies.


Montserat.


From the Hon. H. A. Howes (through the West India Committee) to the Central Hospital Supply Service:—


480 lbs. of cotton for Red Cross pillows.






LEEWARD ISLANDS—cont.


St. Kitts.



£.
s.
d.


Privately subscribed to:—


The British Red Cross and St. John Fund
228
12
8


The Red Cross Ambulance Fund
1,200
0
0


From local organisations (through the West India Committee) to the Central Hospital Supply Service:—


2 cases of hospital supplies.


Virgin Islands.


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
15
0
0


MALAYA.


Privately subscribed through the Malaya Patriotic Fund to:—


1. British Red Cross and St. John Fund
95,500
0
0


2. French Red Cross
5,000
0
0


3. Y.M.C.A. for the provision of vans and huts
5,000
0
0


4. Y.M.C.A
10,000
0
0


5. Shipwrecked Mariners' Society
12,500
0
0


6. Shipwrecked Mariners' Society, for the benefit of members of the Mercantile Marine who have suffered loss or injury by torpedo, gunfire, mine or aerial attack
5,000
0
0


7. Admiralty, for the benefit of members of the Royal Navy who have suffered similarly
5,000
0
0


8. Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association
15,000
0
0


9. Incorporated Soldiers', Sailors' Help Society
10,000
0
0


10. St. Dunstan's
10,000
0
0


11. The Salvation Army
15,000
0
0


12. Navy League Comforts Supply
5,000
0
0


13. Comforts for Officers and Men of the Royal Navy, including Drifters, Minesweepers, Trawlers, and other small vessels
4,000
0
0


14. Overseas League Tobacco Fund
3,500
0
0


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
461
6
9





STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.



£
s.
d.


From the Government of the Straits Settlements to His Majesty's Government towards the cost of Imperial Defence (September, 1939)
1,000,000
0
0


From the Government of the Straits Settlements to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (February, 1940)
1,000,000
0
0


From Captain H. J. Abbey, Singapore, to His Majesty's Government—Loan of £5,000 for the duration of the war, free of interest (May, 1940).


From Messrs. N. Reuben &amp; Company, Limited, Singapore, to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (May, 1940)
1,000
0
0


From Mr. Yeap Chor Ee, a resident in Penang, to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (May, 1940)
1,500
0
0


From a resident in Singapore, who desires to remain anonymous, to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (May, 1940)
87
3
0


From Mr. T. M. Winsley, a resident in Singapore, to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (May, 1940)
50
0
0


From Mr. Khoo Sian Ewe, a resident in Penang, to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (June, 1940)
1,000
0
0


Privately subscribed to His Majesty's Government through the "Straits Settlements War Fund" inaugurated in June, 1940, by the "Straits Times" and the "Straits Echo," for the purchase of aircraft
250,000
0
0


The Singapore Harbour Board are constructing two patrol vessels to be presented as free gifts to the Royal Navy (June, 1940).


From the Penang (George Town) Municipal Commissioners to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (July, 1940)
35,000
0
0


From the Singapore Chamber of Commerce to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (July, 1940)
11,731
15
5






FEDERATED MALAY STATES.


From Their Highnesses the Rulers of the Federated Malay States to His Majesty's Government towards cost of Imperial Defence (September, 1939)
$4,000,000 (£466,666 13 4)



£
s.
d.


From Their Highnesses the Rulers of the Federated Malay States to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (February, 1940)
1,000,000
0
0


From Mr. P. P'chient, a Chinese resident in the State of Negri Sembilan to His Majesty's Government. Loan of $100,000 (£11,666 13s, 4d.) for duration of war, free of interest (March, 1940).


From His Highness the Sultan of Perak to His Majesty's Government. Loan of $50,000 (£5,833 6s. 8d.) for duration of war, free of interest (April, 1940).


From His Highness the Sultan of Selangor on the anniversary of his birthday as a personal war contribution to His Majesty's Government (13th May, 1940)
1,000
0
0


From an Asiatic resident in Kuala Lumpur, who wishes to remain anonymous, to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war, and as a token of appreciation of the Premier's leadership (May, 1940)
$10,000 (£1,166 13s. 4d.)



£
s.
d.


From Mrs. Loke Yew (£2,000) and her son Mr. Loke Wan Tho (£10,000), Chinese residents in Kuala Lumpur, to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (May, 1940)
2,000
0
0



10,000
0
0


From a British resident in the Federated Malay States who wishes to remain anonymous, to His Majesty's Government. Loan of $25,000 (£2,916 13s. 4d.) free of interest for the period lasting until one year after the cessation of hostilities with Germany (May, 1940).


From Mr. M. C. Hay, a resident in the Federated Malay States to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (May, 1940)
100
0
0





FEDERATED MALAY SCATES—cont.



£
s.
d


Privately subscribed to His Majesty's Government through the Federated Malay States War Fund inaugurated in June, 1940, by the "Malay Mail" for the purchase of aircraft
55,000
0
0


From Harban Singh, F.M.S., to His Majesty's Government. Loan of $2,000 (£233 6s. 8d.) for the duration of the war, free of interest.


UNFEDERATED MALAY STATES.


Brunei.


From His Highness the Sultan of Brunei to His Majesty's Government towards the cost of Imperial Defence (September, 1939)
$100,000 (£11,666 13s. 4d.)


From His Highness the Sultan of Brunei to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (March, 1940)
$100,000 (£11,666 13s. 4d.)


Johore.



£
s.
d.


From His Highness the Sultan of Johore as a contribution by the State of Johore to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (June, 1940)
250,000
0
0


From Dr. Crawford, Muar, Johore, to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (May,1940)
1,000
0
0


Kedah.


From His Highness the Regent on behalf of the Government of Kedah to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (October, 1939)
$1,000,000 (£116,666 13s. 4d.)


Kelantan.


From His Highness the Sultan of Kelantan on behalf of the Government of Kelantan to His Majesty's Government towards cost of Imperial Defence (September,1939)
$100,000 (£11,666 13s. 4d.)


From His Highness the Sultan of Kelantan on behalf of the Government of Kelantan to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (June, 1940)
$100,000 (£11,666 13s. 4d.)






UNFEDERATED MALAY STATES—cont.


Perils.


From His Highness the Raja of Perlis on behalf of the Government of Perlis to His Majesty's Government towards the cost of Imperial Defence (September, 1939)
$25,000 (£2,916 13s. 4d.)


From His Highness the Raja of Perlis as a contribution from his State to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (February, 1940)
$50,000 (£5,833 6s. 8d.)


From His Highness the Raja of Perlis, on the occasion of the anniversary of his birthday, as a contribution from his State to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (June, 1940)
$100,000 (£11,666 13s. 4d.)


Trengganu.


From His Highness the Sultan of Trengganu to His Majesty's Government towards cost of Imperial Defence (September, 1939)
$50,000 (£5,833 6s. 8d.)


From His Highness the Sultan of Trengganu to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (May, 1940)
$50,000 (£5,833 6s. 8d.)


MALTA.



£
s.
d


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
74
6
3


MAURITIUS.


From the Government of Mauritius to His Majesty's Government—the cost of an aircraft (December, 1939).


From the Government of Mauritius to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund (December, 1939)
2,000
0
0


From the Government of Mauritius on the celebration of Empire Day, to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (May, 1940)
Rs.180,000 (£13,000)


From the Government of Mauritius to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (June, 1940)
Rs.2,000,000 (£150,000)





MAURITIUS—cont.


Privately subscribed to His Majesty's Government through a fund inaugurated by the Mauritius Press Association in June, 1940, to further the successful prosecution of the war
Rs. 382,296 (£28,672 4s.)



£
s.
d.


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
1,000
0
0


NIGERIA.


From the Government of Nigeria to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (July, 1940)
100,000
0
0


Privately subscribed to His Majesty's Government through the Nigeria "Win the War Fund" for the purchase of military aircraft (July, 1940)
10,000
0
0


Privately subscribed through the Nigerian War Relief Fund to:—


The British Red Cross and St. John Fund
15,027
13
11


The Polish Relief Fund
4,500
0
0


King George's Fund for Sailors
5,500
0
0


St. Dunstan's
2,000
0
0


Finnish Relief Fund
2,000
0
0


Shipwrecked Fishermen and Mariners' Royal Benevolent Society
2,000
0
0


The Chiefs of the Northern Province are to make voluntary monthly contributions of 5 per cent. of their salaries to the Government to help meet war expenditure.


An offer by the Oron Native Administration in Calabar Province to contribute £200 towards the cost of the war was declined in view of the local financial situation.


NORTH BORNEO.


From the North Borneo War Relief Fund to war charities in England
1,000
0
0


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
1,805
0
0


NORTHERN RHODESIA.


From the Government of Northern Rhodesia to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (May, 1940)
200,000
0
0


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
2,614
5
9






NORTHERN RHODESIA—cont.



£
s.
d.


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund by the native employés of the Globe and Phoenix Gold Mining Company in Northern Rhodesia
65
0
0


Privately subscribed to King George's Fund for Sailors
660
0
0


NYASALAND.


From the Government of Nyasaland to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (June, 1940)
20,000
0
0


From the Government of Nyasaland to His Majesty's Government for the purchase of military aircraft
32,850
0
0


Privately subscribed to:


The British Red Cross and St. John Fund
2,400
0
0


King George's Fund for Sailors
400
0
0


PALESTINE.


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
101
7
4


From Mr. M. Neviasski to His Majesty's Government towards cost of British Forces in Palestine
9
0
0


ST. HELENA.


Balance of gift made to St. Helena by the British Red Cross Society in 1920 has been returned to the society
139
10
0


Ascension Island.


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
9
0
0


SARAWAK.


From His Highness the Rajah of Sarawak to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war—Securities to the par value of $1,000,000 = Sterling value about (October, 1939)
116,666
0
0


From His Highness the Rajah of Sarawak to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (June, 1940)
$500,000 (£58,333 6s. 8d.)


Privately subscribed to His Majesty's Government through a local fund inaugurated to further the prosecution of the war (June, 1940)
$40,000 (£4,666 13s. 4d.)





SARAWAK—cont.



£
s.
d.


From the Sarawak Rubber Industry to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (July, 1940)
11,718
15
0


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
1,000
0
0


SEYCHELLES.


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
660
0
0


SIERRA LEONE.


From the Government of Sierra Leone to His Majesty's Government as a contribution towards the cost of the war in grateful recognition of the great benefits which Sierra Leone has received during the last 153 years under the British flag (July, 1940)
100,000
0
0


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
2,905
3
0


From Mr. H. N. Thompson to His Majesty's Government—Loan of £500 for the duration of the war free of interest (July, 1940).


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund by 126 persons representing the small Lebano-Syrian Community (January, 1940)
758
11
0


Further donation to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund from the Lebano-Syrian Community (July, 1940)
1,000
0
0


TANGANYIKA TERRITORY.


From the Chief and people of the Machame and Kibongoto Chiefdom of the Chagga Tribe, Moshi District, a proportion of each person's 1939 harvest of coffee, maize or eluesine. Foodstuffs to be used by the King's African Rifles at Moshi; coffee to be sold and proceeds credited to Tanganyika Red Cross Fund (November, 1939).


From the members of the Kilimanjaro native Co-operative Union who are of the Chagga Tribe—Sh.20,000 for purposes connected with the war of this amount Sh.8,000 have been transferred to the Tanganyika Red Cross Fund (January, 1940).






TANGANYIKA TERRITORY—cont.



£
s.
d.


From the Chief and people of the Uru Chiefdom of the Chagga Tribe—73 bags of maize and 7 bags of beans for the use of the King's African Rifles (January, 1940).


From a Meru tribesman of the Arusha District approximately 50 pounds of tobacco for the use of the troops at Arusha (January, 1940).


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
3,085
2
4


From Mrs. D. Williams Lushoto, Tanganyika Territory, to the Army Comforts Committee
32
0
0


From the Bena Tribe of the Ulanga District 100 bags (about 10 tons) of rice for the use of the King's Africa Rifles (May, 1940).


From the 14 Chiefs of the Dodoma Native Council—94 head of cattle for the use of His Majesty's Forces (May, 1940).


From the Government of Tanganyika Territory to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (July, 1940)
100,000
0
0


Privately subscribed to a local fund to be handed unconditionally to His Majesty's Government for war purposes—first instalment (July, 1940)
5,000
0
0


Privately subscribed through the Tanganyika Welfare Fund to:


King George's Fund for Sailors
1,083
0
0


The Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association
1,000
0
0


St. Dunstan's
1,000
0
0


For amenities for African troops
750
0
0


For Indian troops in the Middle East
250
0
0


TRINIDAD.


From the Government of Trinidad to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (November, 1939)
$1,000,000 (£208,000)


From the Government of Trinidad to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (May, 1940)
$1,500,000 (£312,500)





TRINIDAD—cont.



£
s.
d.


From the Government of Trindad to His Majesty's Government—Loan of 2,500,000 dollars (£520,833 6s. 8d.) for the duration of the war, free of interest (July, 1940).


From an anonymous donor "A Trinidadian" to His Majesty's Government £10,000 worth of 3½ per cent. War Loan for the purchase of aircraft (July, 1940)
10,000
0
0


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
14,016
17
6


Collected by the Chinese Section of the local Red Cross Society for the purchase of 2 ambulances
$5,000 (£1,042)



£
s.
d.


Privately subscribed to fund for officers and men of the Royal Navy who took part in rescue of survivors of the "Simon Bolivar"
268
10
0


Privately subscribed to His Majesty's Government through a fund inaugurated by the "Trinidad Guardian" in June, 1940, for the purchase of aircraft for the defence of England
42,000
0
0


From Sir George Huggins (through the West India Committee) to His Majesty's Forces:


213 cases of Citrus.


From the Trinidad Red Cross Society (through the West India Committee) to the Central Hospital Supply Service, His Majesty's Forces and Refugee Organisations:


3 cases of hospital supplies.


7 cases of hospital supplies and knitted comforts.


8 cases of refugee clothes.


UGANDA.


From the Government of Uganda to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (June, 1940)
100,000
0
0


From the Kabaka of Buganda on behalf of the Government and people of Buganda to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war (June, 1940)
10,000
0
0


From the Omugabe, Chiefs and people of Ankole to His Majesty's Government towards the purchase of military aircraft (July, 1940)
1,000
0
0






UGANDA—cont.



£
s.
d.


The Native Government of Buganda and the Native Administrations of the Eastern and Western Provinces have promised to give £5,000, £7,000 and £5,000, respectively, each year during which the war lasts and for one year after it ends towards the expenditure of the Protectorate.


Seven motor lorries and one saloon car have been presented to the Uganda Government by Mr. K. H. Kamani, Mbale, Uganda.


A Central War Charities Committee has been set up to deal with contributions to British Red Cross and St. John War Organisation, etc., and the making of comforts for troops.


Privately subscribed to:


The British Red Cross and St. John Fund
577
4
6


King George's Fund for Sailors
575
0
0


WESTERN PACIFIC.


Gilbert and Ellice Islands.


From the Banabans, a native community on Ocean Island in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony, to His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war
12,500
0
0


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
120
0
0


New Hebrides.


New Hebrides Central Committee for Aid to Soldiers formed to assist dependents of soldiers mobilised from the New Hebrides, and to collect funds for the Red Cross Society, etc.


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
20
11
2


British Solomon Islands Protectorate.


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund, through the British Solomon Islands Protectorate Red Cross Society
£A.534 (£425)


Tonga.


An aerodrome site of 546 acres on "Royal" land has been leased to His Majesty's Government at a rental of 1s. per annum by the Queen and Premier of Tonga.





WESTERN PACIFIC—cont.



£
s.
d.


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
366
17
8



(Tongan Currency) (£298 2s. 2d. Sterling).


WINDWARD ISLANDS.


Grenada



£
s.
d.


From the inhabitants of Grenada—104 bags (about 10 tons) of raw cocoa for the use of His Majesty's Forces.


Privately subscribed through the Grenada War Purposes Committee:—


To the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
505
0
0


To the Governor of Trinidad Fund for West Indian Seamen
40
0
0


Privately subscribed to King George's Fund for Sailors
300
0
0


From local organisations (through the West India Committee) to the Central Hospital Supply Service and His Majesty's Forces:—


1 case of hospital supplies and knitted goods.


Dominica.


From the Lebanese Syrians of Dominica to His Majesty's Government towards the cost of a bombing plane or the purchase of bombs (July, 1940)
360
0
0


Privately subscribed to:—


British Red Cross and St. John Fund
218
0
0


St. Dunstan's
16
0
0


King George's Fund for Sailors
20
0
0


St. Lucia.


Privately subscribed to His Majesty's Government through a local fund for the purchase of military aircraft (July, 1940)
2,100
0
0


Privately subscribed to:—


British Red Cross and St. John Fund
250
0
0


King George's Fund for Sailors
20
0
0


From local organisations (through the West India Committee) to the Central Hospital Supply Service and His Majesty's Forces:—


1 case of hospital supplies and knitted comforts.






WINDWARD ISLANDS—cont.


St. Vincent.



£
s.
d.


From the St. Vincent Arrowroot Association to His Majesty's Government for the purchase of aircraft
5,000
0
0


Privately subscribed to the British Red Cross and St. John Fund
200
0
0


From local organisations (through the West India Committee) to the Central Hospital Supply Service and His Majesty's Forces:—


1 case of hospital supplies and knitted comforts.


ZANZIEAR.


Privately subscribed to:—


The British Red Cross and St. John Fund
1,000
0
0


King George's Fund for Sailors
303
0
0


From His Highness the Sultan of Zanzibar on behalf of the Government of Zanzibar to His Majesty's Government for the purchase of fighter aircraft (July, 1940)
20,000
0
0


TRISTAN DA CUNHA.


A large parcel of woollen comforts made by 25 inhabitants of the Island has been sent to the Army Comforts Depot.


BRITISH WEST INDIAN SUBJECTS IN BRAZIL.


Privately subscribed by 39 British West Indian subjects at Porto Velho, Brazil, to the Tobacco Fund for British Fighting Forces
Rs.472 (£6 4s. 2d.)


SUMMARY OF GIFTS AND LOANS.



£
s.
d.


Cash gifts to His Majesty's Government (excluding gifts in kind: e.g., an aeroplane from Mauritius: Patrol boats from Singapore Harbour Board; coffee, cocoa, etc.)
7,555,164
4
4


Loans to His Majesty's Government (free of interest for the duration of the war)
1,156,983
6
8


Cash gifts subscribed by local residents to Colonial Governments
12,500
0
0


Cash gifts to Charities, etc. (excluding all gifts in kind)
404,619
7
8


Cash subscribed to various Colonial Funds which have not yet been allocated
26,396
7
11

Women's Voluntary organisations have been formed in practically all of the Colonial Dependencies and in addition to the details given in the foregoing list, many consignments, the details for which are not available, of hospital supplies and knitted comforts, etc., have been sent direct to the various Depots in this country for distribution to His Majesty's Forces.

NOTE.—This list should NOT be regarded as a complete or final record of the contributions which have been made by the Colonial Empire during the war.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that none of the financial contributions made by the Colonial Empire towards the war effort or Red Cross will prevent the initiation or maintenance of essential social and medical services in any of the areas concerned?

Mr. George Hall: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that the gifts made by Colonial Governments have been such as the Colonies concerned were able to afford, without detriment to their general financial situation or to the maintenance of public services.

Mr. Adams: In view of the very great importance of this question to social welfare and medical service, will the Minister keep the matter very closely in view, in order to see that there is no depreciation in this respect?

Mr. Hall: Yes, Sir.

Viscountess Astor: Would it not be a very bad thing if the Minister told the Colonies that they were not to make any more contributions to the Red Cross, because of their local circumstances?

Mr. Adams: Nobody suggested that.

Viscountess Astor: Very nearly.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

RATINGS (TRAVELLING CONCESSIONS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will issue free travelling warrants to the wives and mothers of ratings whose ships are in home ports but who have infrequent leave, particularly for those living a considerable distance from such ports; and whether he will issue passes or take other action to secure that those relatives who are able to travel to ports to see their men shall be able temporarily to enter restricted areas for that purpose?:

Sir V. Warrender: Naval ratings have two free travelling warrants a year, and may travel at half the ordinary fare on other occasions. Their wives are also entitled to this half fare rate, and my right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to make any further concession. Relatives with the usual permits are allowed to enter the North of Scotland Protected Areas and also, subject to certain conditions, the Orkneys and Shetlands. All persons entering defence areas may be challenged to produce evidence of the purpose of the journey, though no permits are issued. Visits to naval relatives, except in special circumstances, are permitted.

Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the hon. Baronet for that answer, may I ask whether, in view of prospective rise in the cost of living under the Budget, he will have this matter seriously reconsidered?

Sir V. Warrender: I am prepared, naturally, to consider anything, but this is a matter which would concern the other Services as well as the Navy.

Mr. Sorensen: Will you set an example?

SEA TRAFFIC, FRANCE AND NORTH AFRICA.

Commander King-Hall: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the sea traffic between Metropolitan France and North Africa is subject to British naval examination and control?

Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Have we any good reason to believe that German troops are being transported across the Mediterranean to North Africa?

Sir V. Warrender: That is another question, and perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.

SEA CADET CORPS.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, what assistance is now given by his Department to the Navy League Sea Cadet Corps?

Sir V. Warrender: Recognised Sea Cadet Corps units receive an Admiralty grant of 3s. 6d. a head for their regular members between 12 and i8 years of age. Before the war a grant of naval stores up

to 50 pounds was made to newly recognised units, and camp equipment was loaned free of charge. This assistance in kind has had to be temporarily discontinued.

WEST INDIES (APPOINTMENTS TO POSTS).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in the adoption of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the West Indies; who is the new controller; and what other appointments have been made?

Mr. George Hall: As my Noble Friend announced in another place on 2nd July, he has selected for the post of Comptroller for Development and Welfare in the West Indies, Sir Frank Stockdale, Agricultural Adviser to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whose distinguished service in the West Indies and other Colonies admirably fits him for this task. The selection of Mr. A. J. Wakefield, Director of Agriculture, Tanganyika Territory, to be Inspector-General of Agriculture for the West Indies, was announced on 22nd May. The selection of advisers on labour, public health, education and social welfare is proceeding, and I hope that announcements may be possible before very long regarding some or all of these posts. These appointments, together with the financial provision in the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, form the basis on which action can be taken on the recommendations of the West India Royal Commission. In the meantime, Governors have furnished most valuable material regarding the application of the recommendations to the particular problems of the territories for which they are responsible, and consideration of this is proceeding.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY PASSENGERS (ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. Isaacs: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the existing circumstances of railway travel, he will make representations to the railway executive as to the desirability of following the example set on some railway-systems by the abolition of any distinction with respect to the class of seat?

The Minister of Transport (Sir John Reith): I referred to certain aspects of this question in replies to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampon (Mr. Mander) on 11th July and by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) on 12th June. This is a matter which the Railway Executive Committee assure me is subject to periodic consideration.

Mr. Isaacs: Would it be unreasonable to ask the Railway Executive, in view of the considerable inconvenience to third-class passengers, that first-class passengers should be prepared to give up some of their privileges?

Sir J. Reith: I should like to refer my hon. Friend to the Questions which I have already answered, one of which dealt with that particular point.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that certain ex-Cabinet Ministers have been in the habit of reserving compartments despite the fact that a train was unduly overcrowded?

RAILWAY STATION ACCOMMODATION (ARMED FORCES).

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Minister of Transport the amounts received by or due to the railway companies from voluntary organisations catering for the com-

Vehicles concerned.
Fatal accidents.
Non-fatal accidents involving personal injury.


1939 period.
1940 period.
1939 period.
1940 period.


Trolley Vehicles
…
…
…
…
7
14
2,054
2,012


Tramcars
…
…
…
…
…
8
9
1,740
1,147


Central Omnibuses
…
…
…
…
30
36
4,328
2,790


Coaches
…
…
…
…
…
7
2
176
31


Country Omnibuses
…
…
…
4
5
325
266








56
66
8,623
6,246

At the inquests on the 66 fatal accidents which occurred during the 22 weeks ended 29th June, 1940, the verdict was "accidental death" in 61 cases; "death by misadventure" in three cases; "death from natural causes" in one case; and in one case there was an open verdict. In only two out of the 66 cases was there any criticism of the drivers concerned.

SEASON TICKETS (FACILITIES).

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that

fort of the Armed Forces for space or buildings occupied, or amenities supplied since the outbreak of war?

Sir J. Reith: For 137 sites and premises, the total rent per annum to all railway companies is £594.

ROAD ACCIDENTS, LONDON.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport how many persons were killed and how many injured by London Passenger Transport Board omnibuses, trolleybuses, tramcars and coaches, respectively, during the five months ended 30th June, 1940, compared with the five months ended 30th June, 1939?

Sir J. Reith: As the answer includes many figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
I am informed by the London Passenger Transport Board that the numbers of fatal accidents and of non-fatal accidents involving personal injury in which their road vehicles were concerned during the periods from 29th January to 1st July, 1939, and from 28th January to 29th June, 1940, were respectively as follow:
Travellers Facilities, Limited, assist passengers in the purchase of season tickets by collecting weekly payments; that between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent-surcharge is made on tickets of juveniles compared with 12½ per cent. on those of adults for providing these facilities; and whether he will approach the Railway Executive Committee to provide such facilities direct and at a more reasonable rate, in view of the heavy burden imposed on many travellers by the recent increase in fares and the rise in the cost of living?

Sir J. Reith: A number of concerns offer the facilities referred to, which consist, in effect, in advancing money to clients for the purchase of quarterly seasons instead of shorter term ones. I do not think there is a case for asking the railway companies to enter this field.

Mr. Parker: Is it not possible to ask the railway companies just to make a surcharge, of 10 per cent. for example, and to allow payment weekly, as there are many juveniles who cannot possibly find these sums in the whole quarter, owing to the smallness of their wages?

Sir J. Reith: I understand the purport of the Question, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the railway companies normally issue weekly season tickets.

RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Transport whether, to ensure the operation of the railways in the interest of the nation as a whole, he will now add to the Railway Executive Committee a high officer of his Department, a representative of the railway workers and some individual of wide commercial experience?

Sir J. Reith: The Railway Executive Committee is a body expert in all phases of railway management, and a high officer of the Ministry, the railway control officer, is in constant touch with them. I think the national interest is served by the present arrangement.

Mr. Butcher: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask whether he is not of the opinion that the recent scandal about soldiers' accommodation at the stations might have been avoided if somebody, not so directly concerned with railway administration solely, had been added to that body?

Mr. Watkins: Has the Minister received any request from the railway trade unions that they should be represented on the Railway Executive, and, if not, will he take no action in the matter until he does receive such a request?

Sir J. Reith: There has certainly been no such request to my knowledge.

Viscountess Astor: If the Minister will take into consideration the age of the directors in some railways, I think he will see that you must have younger people on, or you will never get anything done.

Mr. Liddall: Arising out of the original answer, and, on behalf of all loyal Members of this House wishing you, Sir, many happy returns of the day, may I ask the Minister whether, instead of considering a high official of his Department as executive, he will recommend some ordinary Member of this House?

DEFENCE REGULATIONS (SENTENCES).

Mr. Radford: asked the Attorney-General (1) why he did not order the prosecution under the Treachery Act of the Air Ministry inspector, William Gaskell Downing, who was sentenced at Manchester, on 16th instant, to six years' imprisonment for making photographs of an aeronautical inspection badge, an Air Ministry pass and a permit to enter certain premises;
(2) why he did not order the prosecution, under the Treachery Act, of the aeroengine works employé who was sentenced at Crewe, on 13th instant, to six months' imprisonment for 10 offences under the Defence of the Realm Act, in whose apartments were found a cinema camera containing films of aeroplane engines, a passport for various European countries and an international permit to drive a motor cycle?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): In neither case did the evidence justify proceedings under the Treachery Act.

Mr. Radford: Does my right hon. and learned Friend hold the view that treachery is not treachery if the police are quick enough to catch a man before he has consummated what he is after; and, secondly, why was the Treachery Act brought before this House and passed, two months ago?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir, I do not accept the suggestion in the first part of the Question. Each case has to be considered on its own merits, in the light of the code contained in the Treachery Act, the Official Secrets Act and the Defence Regulations. Different and graver facts have to be established to justify proceedings under the Treachery Act than under the other provisions. If my hon. Friend has a suspicion which he appears to have, that there is any reluctance to invoke the Treachery Act in a propel case, he will be


glad to be assured that his suspicions are quite unfounded.

Mr. Radford: With regard to the first case, at Manchester, there has been struck out from my Question a statement that this Air Ministry inspector was living with a German woman at the time. Was my right hon. and learned Friend aware of that fact?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir, I was not. As far as the Manchester case is concerned, the offence took place before the Treachery Act was in force.

Mr. Bevan: Is it an offence to live with a German woman?

Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take care that, in exercising his functions under this Act, he will not allow himself to be influenced by political pressure of any kind?

The Attorney-General: There is no question of politics at all.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (WAGES AND HOURS).

Mr. Sexton: asked the Minister of Agriculture the result of referring to the Durham County War Agricultural Executive Committee the question of the increase of hours for agricultural workers in that county from 50 to 60 weekly, which largely annulled the effect of the increased minimum wage of the workers; and whether an increased rate per hour for women agricultural workers is being conceded in Durham county?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): The Durham Agricultural Wages Committee has decided to give notice of proposals to restore the hours in respect of which the weekly minimum wage of 48s. is payable for ordinary adult male workers to 50, and to increase the minimum rate for women workers of 18 and over to 8d. per hour.

Mr. Sexton: Will the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that this Committee will not further attack in a mean manner the agricultural workers' conditions?

Mr. Williams: We can only hope that my right hon. Friend will efficiently exercise the power he has under the 1924 Act.

Mr. T. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman see to it that this new proposal is dated back as near as possible to the date when the 48s. a week came into operation? Further, is he aware that this proposal will give general satisfaction to the agricultural workers?

Mr. Williams: In answer to the first part of the Question, I am afraid that the wages committee have not the power to make retrospective payments.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Granville: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for Parliament to remain in Session during the present vital period of the war and, instead of adjourning for a Summer Recess, enable the House of Commons to meet for a limited number of days each week in order that Ministers may keep in touch with Members of Parliament and public opinion in the country?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 9th July last in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).

Mr. Granville: In the light of possible events, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be reassuring to the country if the Ministers responsible for the prosecution of the war were able to keep in the closest touch with the House of Commons? Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that he used to make continual demands for the House to continue its Sittings when the situation was less serious than it is now?

Mr. Attlee: If the hon. Member will read the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for West Fife, he will see that all those points were dealt with.

Mr. Thorne: Is not the hon. Member aware that the world is changing, and so are Members of Parliament?

Mr. Gallacher: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House should be in continuous Session throughout the summer months, even for a few days a week?

Viscountess Astor: Is it not very important that Members should get down to their constituents?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

ENGINEERING AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Supply whether there is a plan to bring about the efficient organisation of the whole engineering and allied industries and a great acceleration of output; when it is intended that the resources shall be organised that will enable the peak of production to be attained; when a systematic priority policy is to be introduced; and what action is being taken on the evidence provided by men who know the supply industries at the conferences called by the Minister during the past few weeks?

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The full capacity of the engineering and allied industries is being directed as rapidly as possible to achieve full acceleration of output and maximum production for war purposes. Priority arrangements are being dealt with systematically under the direction of the Production Council. In regard to the last part of the Question, I can assure my hon. Friend that special attention has already been directed to suggestions arising out of the recent conference with representative industrialists. Other aspects of the matter are being dealt with in an answer by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to-day.

Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware that great concern has been expressed by managerial and administrative sections as well as workpeople because organisation is not taking place leading to the peak of production, and will he take early steps in order to allay this feeling?

Mr. Morrison: If my hon. Friend will listen to the answer which is to be given, he will see that steps have been taken.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the Minister any reason to believe that there are some munition factories, which need not be specified, where men are receiving full wages, but, for some reason or other, are not working full time, and if he has any reason for believing that that is so, will he take the necessary action?

Mr. Morrison: If I find that that is the case, I will. They may or may not be factories under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Supply.

Mr. Leach: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an official film is being

shown in the leading London cinemas which seems to indicate that the Ministry is overworking girl workers in these factories almost to the point of death?

AREA ORGANISATION.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will make a full statement on the reconstruction of the machinery of the Area Advisory Committee; and whether it is intended to carry out further decentralisation and to confer more power on the local organisations and compulsory authority subject to national supervision?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As was stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply on 27th June, the Government have recently had under examination and review the area organisation which has been set up to secure the best utilisation of the industrial resources of each area in connection with the national war effort. Hitherto the Area Boards have consisted of the official area representatives of the Ministries of Labour, Supply, Aircraft Production, the Admiralty and the Board of Trade, and have been assisted by advisory committees representative of engineering employers and workers in the areas covered by each Board. It is now intended to reconstitute each Area Board by the addition of three representatives of industrialists and three representatives of trade unions. The chairman and deputy-chairman of each Board, who will be drawn from these representatives, have already been selected. The existing Area Advisory Committees will not be dissolved but will be called together from time to time by the chairman of the Board and will act as a consultative committee on engineering matters.
The official members of the Area Boards will continue to be responsible to their own Departments, but the Area Boards in their corporate capacity will be responsible directly to the Industrial Capacity Committee of the Production Council, of which I have been appointed chairman and Sir James Lithgow, deputy-chairman. The revised organisation which I have outlined will place at the disposal of the Government the knowledge and experience of leading industrialists and representatives of labour in each part of the United Kingdom in the task of mobilising


the industrial capacity of the area so far as technically possible, having regard to the needs both of the three Supply Ministries and of the export and civil trades for which the Board of Trade is responsible. A list giving the names of the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the Area Boards will be issued shortly.

Mr. Smith: Am I correct in understanding that these boards will be called together only on the initiative of the chairmen, and, if so, is that considered to be satisfactory? Secondly, have the organisations representing all the interests in the supply industry been consulted on these arrangements; if so, are they satisfied, and will compulsory powers be given to the boards to act?

Mr. Macmillan: With regard to the first part of the Supplementary Question, the boards will be responsible in their corporate capacity to the industrial committee, and the chairmen will receive instructions as to how they will carry out their duties from the committee. With regard to the second part of the Question, I am in very close touch with the Trades Union Council, and all the appointments as regards the trade union representatives have been made after consultation with Sir Walter Citrine.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in one area at least the committee has met only twice since the war started? Can he assure us that under the new arrangements the committees will meet more often?

Mr. Macmillan: The whole purpose of this arrangement is to set up new machinery in order that the boards may have additional members who will carry out the duties of the boards so that they will be continuous.

Mr. Liddall: Will my hon. Friend repeat who is the chairman of the committee?

Mr. Macmillan: I am the chairman of the committee, and Sir James Lithgow is deputy-chairman.

Mr. Maxton: Does that mean that Sir James Lithgow has given up his position in the Ministry of Shipping?

THREE-SHIFT SYSTEM.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that the best method of production to bring the maxi-

mum results is the three-shift system, based upon 24 hours continuous working; what steps are being taken to organise three shifts; and why there are not three shifts employed now on the most urgently required equipment?

Mr. H. Morrison: I agree with the general purpose of my hon. Friend's Question, but I am advised that a three-shift system of continuous working is not always practicable or conducive to maximum production. Where desirable and where the necessary numbers of skilled and other workers are available, three shifts are now being worked on the production of urgently required equipment. I can assure my hon. Friend that the question of obtaining maximum production is one that I have constantly under consideration in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service.

Mr. Smith: Will the Minister give his assurance that where it is practicable he will use his influence to facilitate the transfer of highly skilled men to the factories engaged on urgently needed work so that the men can make the contribution which is desired?

Mr. Morrison: That is one of the tasks being actively pursued by the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that one of the best means of getting the maximum production from any factory is to give the maximum of power to the shop stewards?

KNITTED COMFORTS, MERCANTILE MARINE.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that the office of the Director of Voluntary Organisations is able to supply cheap wool and other help to those who are knitting for the three combatant Services but not for the Mercantile Marine; and, in view of the fact that civilian sailors are making an almost equal contribution to our war effort, will he arrange for the extension of the same help to those desiring to knit for them?

Mr. H. Morrison: I understand that this is already being done through the Personal Services League.

WASTE MATERIAL.

Sir W. Davison: asked the Minister of Supply whether his attention has been called to the inadequacy of the sorting


arrangements for old metal, waste paper, rags and other waste at the municipal and other depots to which the public, who at Government request have carefully sorted their waste, have sent in their collections, so that in the case of paper, clean paper has been allowed to become dirty and the bulk of what has been collected is only fit to mix with rags for the making of such material as felt, which is not immediately required, while munition firms refuse to accept the unsorted old scrap metal which is offered to them; and what action is being taken to deal with this matter?

Mr. H. Morrison: The adequacy of the arrangements for sorting scrap metal, waste paper, rags, and other waste at the depots of the local authorities is receiving constant attention from my Department. According to the information available, there are adequate arrangements at most of such depots for keeping separate, or sorting, the material to the degree requisite for the sale of it to merchants, and I hope for the active interest of all citizens in the affairs of their local authorities in removing any deficiencies. In many cases the sorting and grading of the material requires, in addition, the technical knowledge and experience of the merchants. In the case of paper, as a result of the advice given to local authorities, the proportion of clean paper has been greatly increased, and the returns for the month of June show that over 80 per cent. of the 23,500 tons of paper disposed of was sold as clean paper. Scrap metal is sold almost entirely to scrap merchants, who further classify and grade it, so that it may be disposed of to the best advantage.

Sir W. Davison: Is it correct, as has been stated, that the marine store merchants have many hundreds of tons of metal of which they are unable to dispose?

Mr. Morrison: That is a matter on which I am actively engaged, but I would warn hon. Members not to believe everything that is said on these matters by interested parties.

Sir W. Davison: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will take steps to use the immense amount of waste of all kinds contributed by the public in response to the Government appeal, which, to a large extent, is not being

made use of, inter alia, as it is not suitable for use under most Government specifications, and, in particular, with regard to wool waste which is no longer required for flock for mattresses, as these are now made from coir fibre imported from overseas, taking up shipping space which might be more profitably used?

Mr. Morrison: All possible steps are being taken to make the best use of the waste material arising from the salvage appeal, both by modification of Government specifications where this is possible, and by other methods. With regard to the last part of the Question, I am not in a position to add anything to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on 17th July.

Sir W. Davison: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it would be very desirable to save shipping space, as was done in the last war, by using flock, which can be properly disinfected, rather than bringing this coir from overseas?

Mr. Morrison: Naturally, the shipping aspect appeals to me, but, if I may say so to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), the Department really concerned with this Question is the War Office. They take the view, on medical advice, that the use of this wool might be dangerous to the health of the troops, and would be uncomfortable. The argument on the merits is one for the War Office, and not for me.

WOOL-CLIPS (PAYMENT).

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the method and dates on which flockmasters will be paid for their season's wool-clip, bearing in mind that merchants have taken delivery of a considerable portion already, which was sold subject to the control price being fixed; and will he therefore take steps to ensure that those who have been without any payment for some weeks shall have the sums due paid forthwith?

Mr. H. Morrison: Payment for this season's British wool will be made by the merchants authorised by the Wool Control to take up the clip. Arrangements have been made for all clips


already in merchants' hands to be valued and paid for promptly. Other clips will be taken up by the merchants and valued as soon as possible, and will be paid for immediately afterwards.

Mr. Liddall: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how this season's wool-clip prices compare with last season's?

Mr. Morrison: There have been discussions on that, and a public announcement will be made.

HOME GUARD (EQUIPMENT).

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Supply whether arrangements will be made with firms not at present engaged on war work, to manufacture equipment for the Home Guard?

Mr. H. Morrison: Arrangements have been made to bring into production many additional firms for the manufacture of equipment needed for the Home Guard.

Mr. Bevan: Is that happening in every case? Are there not persons who could be employed on making hand grenades, who cannot get permission from the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. Morrison: I am not aware of that, but if cases are sent to me, I will, of course, look into them. What I am concerned about is to get enough production to enable us to deliver the goods. We have been eminently successful in this matter since the decision was reached.

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied about that?

Mr. Morrison: I am never satisfied.

DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTANTS (VISITS TO FIRMS).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that inconvenience and dislocation of work have been caused by the visits of accountants from more than one purchasing Department to the same firm; and whether steps will be taken to avoid this overlapping in future?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. With the great increase in the demands of the Services, there is danger of overlapping by the accountants of purchasing Departments who were concerned with the costs of the same firms. On becoming aware that overlapping had in fact occurred in

some instances, I caused steps to be taken which should eliminate duplication of visits by accountants in future. It has now been arranged that the Department principally concerned with a firm's costs will investigate them for other Departments as well as for itself. This procedure has already been agreed to by the Supply Departments concerned with the needs of the armed Forces, and other Departments of His Majesty's Government which are likely to place contracts necessitating costings investigation are being invited to co-operate. I may add that it is hoped to diminish the necessity for visits by departmental accountants to investigate firms' costs by utilising the services of the firms' own auditors. This measure, however, is at present in the experimental stage, but if it proves satisfactory it will be extended. The use of the firms' own auditors will not, of course, affect the Department's right to make their own investigation subsequently, should this be considered necessary, but it is hoped that the report of the firms' auditors will in the great majority of cases be sufficient without further check.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Minister mean that in cases where firms are willing to volunteer that their own auditors will render an independent certificate, he will discontinue the visits of costs accountants, except as a check?

Mr. Morrison: Obviously, the Department must form its own opinion as to the merits of a particular firm and auditor, but it is desired in most cases to do what the hon. Member suggests, though we must reserve the right in any case of making a check and investigation.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

PEEBLES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether any solatium has been given or any apology tendered to the manager of Peebles Co-operative Society for the court proceedings taken against him through the action of his Department in compelling him to accept an average of 308 lbs. of fresh pork weekly instead of the 56 lbs. for which he indented, and prosecuting him when he pickled and sold the excess without coupons to prevent waste?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Boothby): No, Sir; no trader is compelled to accept more than his indent, and no such requirement, according to my information, was made on the Peebles Co-operative Society. I am, however, making further inquiries, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Mathers: Is the Minister not aware that this society were told that unless they took this excess quantity of pork their requirements of other meat would not be supplied? Will he go into the matter with me personally?

Mr. Boothby: Yes, I shall be very pleased to do that.

TEA.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will organise a scheme whereby the tea ration, or part of it, of children and those people who are small tea drinkers, could be used to increase the ration of old age pensioners?

Mr. Boothby: It is inevitable that in all measures of rationing the family as a unit suffers less inconvenience than a person living alone. I cannot, however, hold out any hopes of being able to find a means of overcoming this difficulty which would be practicable from an administrative point of view.

Mr. Parker: Would it be possible to supplement the tea supplies with cocoa supplies from West Africa, in view of the very short sea route from West Africa?

Mr. Boothby: That is a rather different matter from the matter which is under consideration.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Would it be possible to give old age pensioners a small additional ration?

Mr. Boothby: No, Sir, it is not possible to differentiate between various sections of the population, but it is hoped, as I said last week, to raise the general ration.

FRUIT.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that there has been a decided increase in the price of soft fruit during the past week and that prices prevailing during the past 10 days have been more than 50 per cent. above those

of last year; whether he can offer any explanation for the increase; in particular, whether such increase has any relation to the release of sugar for jam-making; and what steps he proposes to take to safeguard the public from exploitation when the plum crop becomes available?

Mr. Levy: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he proposes to take any action against fruit retailers who are raising the price of fresh fruit merely because the demand has increased owing to the provision of extra sugar for jam making?

Mr. Boothby: I am aware of the increase in prices to which both Questions refer, but have been unable to obtain any evidence that it is due to the extra provision of sugar for household jam-making. The main cause of the increase is the shortage of supplies, due to the exceptionally prolonged period of almost unbroken dry weather, and a contributory cause has been the reduction of fruit imports as compared with the corresponding period of previous years, with the result that supplies have been considerably below normal. Such information as has come to my notice does not indicate that there has been any unfair exploitation of these difficulties by the wholesale or retail trades. Hon. Members may rest assured that appropriate action will be taken to safeguard the public from exploitation in the case of the plum crop.

Mr. Charles Brown: Is it intended to let the law of supply and demand work here, unchecked by the Government? Is the Minister aware that black currants have been sold at 1s. 4d. a pound and gooseberries at 1s. 6d., and that gross exploitation has taken place?

Mr. Boothby: No, Sir, I do not accept the suggestion that gross exploitation is taking place.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my hon. Friend aware that the prime producer is not getting the benefit which the middleman is getting? Why not do something about it?

Lieut.-Colonel Heeage: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the country districts they are getting only about 4d. a pound for fruit? Will he consider doing something about gardens which are now empty owing to evacuation, and where, for that or other reasons, there is fruit going to waste?

Mrs. Tate: Is the Minister aware that in many districts prices are raised by 2d. a pound over the week-end, when wages are due? Is not that an example of exploitation?

Mr. Boothby: From the practical point of view, it is almost impossible to control the price of a fluctuating crop such as soft fruits, the supplies of which vary from day to day. It is not considered practicable to control the price of soft fruit crops.

Mr. Watkins: Will the hon. Gentleman fix a maximum price?

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (1) whether, in connection with the plum crop and any surplus there may be after meeting the requirements of the canning and jam-making firms, he will make some arrangements with the manufacturers of chocolates and sweets to enable these manufacturers to use a percentage of plum syrup for manufacturing their sweetmeats, to counteract the shortage of sugar which they may be experiencing in this connection;
(2) whether he can make some statement in connection with the arrangements which have been made by the Ministry of Food with the National Federation of Women's Institutes regarding his utilisation of surplus plum crop for the manufacture of pulp; and whether he can state the number of centres that have been established for this purpose?

Mr. Boothby: I hope to be able to make a full statement on this subject next week, when perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to put down a further Question.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my hon. Friend quite sure that this plum syrup is really suitable for sweet-making? I have been informed on reliable authority that it is most excellent for this purpose.

Mr. Boothby: I will take note of the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Garro Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman also take note of the severe terms in which he has condemned those who profiteer in eggs and his apparent indifference to those who profiteer in soft fruits?

Mr. Boothby: I cannot accept the view that there has been profiteering in soft fruits. There is no evidence to that effect.

EGGS.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the scarcity and high price of eggs in Scotland; and what steps he proposes to take to increase the feeding-stuffs for poultry in Scotland?

Mr. Boothby: I am aware of the present shortage of eggs. Although all possible steps are being taken to obtain imported supplies, there will inevitably be a shortage of eggs in the future. The Ministry has prescribed a maximum retail price for home-produced eggs, and my Noble Friend trusts that he will obtain the support of the public generally in not paying prices in excess of this maximum. With regard to the last part of the Question, as has already been announced, dairy herds and livestock must, in the allocation of supplies of feeding-stuffs, take priority over pigs and poultry, and I am not, therefore, in a position to increase the present releases of feeding-stuffs for poultry.

Mr. Gibson: Will the Minister consider giving to poultry farmers a larger proportion of home-grown cereals for feeding purposes?

Mr. Boothby: In the event of an increase in the importation of feeding-stuffs, the question will be reconsidered, but, as has been stated, the livestock must have priority.

Hon. Members: Why?

Viscountess Astor: Would it not be better for the Government to increase the barley for the hens and cut it off from the brewers?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

HOME GUARD.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War whether a decision has yet been reached to supply Local Defence Volunteers with boots; and will he treat this question as one of urgency?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Sir Edward Grigg): Members of the


Home Guard will be supplied with boots, and issues will begin as soon as demands are received.

PARCELS, NORTHERN IRELAND.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that parcels addressed to men serving in Northern Ireland have been refused by the Post Office; and whether he can look into this matter and provide adequate parcel facilities?

Sir E. Grigg: Under an Order made on 6th July, parcels may not ordinarily be sent to Northern Ireland without a permit. Arrangements are, however, being made for parcels to be sent to soldiers in Northern Ireland without a permit, if they are addressed to the unit address. An announcement containing full instructions will be issued this week by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.

BANDS.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet been able to arrange for military bands to accompany troops when on the march in London and throughout the country, having in mind their stimulating effect on all who see and hear them?

Sir E. Grigg: More than 100 bands have been authorised, and many of these are now in being. Instructions have been issued that every opportunity should be taken, so far as is practicable, of utilising these bands for the purpose which my hon. and gallant Friend has in view.

Sir T. Moore: When is this going to start? The war has been on for nearly a year, and not one of us has seen a band in being.

Sir E. Grigg: My hon. and gallant Friend is very unfortunate; I have seen a good many.

Mr. Lindall: Will my hon. Friend see to it that they play "The Lincolnshire Poacher"?

AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE (CLERKS).

Viscountess Astor: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing

that the pay received by civilian women clerks employed in military offices considerably exceeds the total emoluments received by Auxiliary Territorial Service clerks doing the same type of work, he will, in view of the present shortage of recruits for the clerical branch of the Auxiliary Territorial Service, take steps to put an end to this distinction?

Sir E. Grigg: Taking into consideration the fact that the Auxiliary Territorial Service are all found, receiving free board, lodging and uniform, as well as medical attention and dental treatment, and opportunities for higher rates on promotion, I cannot agree that the Auxiliary Territorial Service clerks are generally worse off as compared with civilian women clerks than soldiers similarly employed with their civilian counterparts. Recruiting for the Service has recently improved considerably, and measures to stimulate it still further under active consideration.

FOREIGN VOLUNTEERS.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War whether arrangements have yet been made to pay French and other soldiers who are in this country and who are fighting with the Allies; and when actual payment was, or will be, made?

Sir E. Grigg: Negotiations are proceeding with representatives of General de Gaulle as to the rates of the emoluments to be fixed for the French volunteers. In the meantime, advances have been issued to them on a provisional basis for the period 1st to 15th July, 1940. Similar negotiations are proceeding with the Poles. In the meantime, advances are being made to Polish troops, and also to Czech troops, from 28th June. In the case of the Norwegian, Dutch and Belgians, payment of their troops is undertaken by the Governments concerned at their own rates.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Amendments to—

Mid-Wessex Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) (No. 2) BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 23rd July].

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Power to provide for trial of offences by special courts in certain areas.)

The Chairman: There was a little doubt in my mind about selecting the first Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey), but I will call the hon. Member so that he may move it, with the reservation that if I find it necessary I shall withdraw it from the Committee.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, to leave out "no review or to."
I thank you, Sir Dennis, for giving me the opportunity of moving this Amendment, the effect of which is to provide that there shall be an opportunity of review in all the decisions of the special courts. The Home Secretary has made it clear that he regards it as of the utmost importance that these courts should function with celerity. I think that the Committee recognises the need for that, and this Amendment would in no way prevent the speedy functioning of the special courts, but it would secure that there would be an opportunity left open in all cases for review of the decision of the court. We are in this Bill taking away, because of the present emergency and the special difficulties of the areas concerned, safeguards that have been regarded as of immense value by the citizens of this country. Trial by jury necessarily disappears because of the special conditions prevailing at the time we are contemplating.
If that is taken away, we ought to secure therefore that there should at least be an opportunity for some form of review to replace the right of appeal in every case. It applies with the greatest importance to cases of capital punishment. I am aware that in those cases the Home Secretary always, in the ordinary course,

exercises his duty of advising as to the use of the Royal Prerogative. That would not be interfered with in any way by providing for a review, but the review would take the place that the Court of Criminal Appeal now takes and give an opportunity for further consideration of the circumstances, and, if need be, of new evidence that might be adduced, which it was not possible for a special court, sitting in an emergency and called very hurriedly, to consider.
Already the Government have felt it right to have a general review of all cases where offenders have been brought before a court and sentenced, under a recent Regulation, for gloomy and depressing propaganda. If it is necessary to have a review in such cases, surely it is far more necessary that there should be an opportunity of reviewing the more serious cases which are likely to be dealt with by these special courts. There may not only be cases of capital punishment; there may also be heavy sentences, and it is very desirable that in those cases, too, there should be opportunity for review. It is not enough to say that when the emergency is over months or, perhaps, years hence, there will be a general review of any such long sentences. We all know that the best judges may sometimes make an error of judgment. The decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal show that, and therefore we ought to have provided in the framework of the Bill itself some machinery for review and leave the detailed machinery for the Home Secretary to work out in the Regulations. It is desirable that Parliament should secure this as a right of the subject, and I hope the Home Secretary will make it clear that he does contemplate such review in all serious cases and will agree that some words should be inserted into the Bill which shall secure this important right for those which come before a special court.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Messer: I desire to support the Amendment, because I believe that not merely in the operation of the law but in the principle behind the law there is much to be said for giving anybody who may be charged the feeling that he will get a fair deal. It is not merely that the law should be just, but that it should appear to be just, and it is not merely that it should appear to be just on the part of those administering it,


but to those who may be, for the time being, victims of it. One can easily understand the difficulty in which the Home Secretary will find himself, for this is quite a new type of legal machinery. I want to commend the Bill to the extent that it does avoid the operation of martial law that otherwise would have been used in substitution for the civil process. Notwithstanding that fact, however, I realise that we may find a set of circumstances with which it is most difficult to deal, because of the confusion existing at the time of the commission, or alleged commission, of the offence, in the slow manner of our ordinary courts of justice. However one may argue as to the necessity of the expediency of the case, there must be given to the individual the right which he has in every other circumstance—the right of review of his case. So far as I understand it, if in this instance he is not to be given the right of review, it will be the only type of legal machinery, with the exception of martial law, where the individual is not given some soft of appeal right. It is because I believe that we have to be prepared and because of the situation in which we find ourselves that we must be willing to surrender a great deal of our liberty, but there are limits which must be set so that the country shall have the feeling that at any rate there will be less chance of injustice being done than would have been done by panic action at a time when emotion has obtained the superior power it always possesses over the reason of people who are administering the law.

3.56 p.m.

Sir Irving Albery: So far as I remember, under military law, if there is no actual appeal, there is a review of a sentence, and it is always confirmed by higher authorities. Therefore, I must admit that when I saw this Bill one of the things which concerned me most was this Clause, which provides that there should be no review. I cannot help feeling that judges and justices who might have to pass death sentences would themselves much prefer to have the knowledge that after they had passed such a sentence it would still have to be confirmed by a higher authority. There is one other reason why I think this is extremely important, and it is this: I can imagine cases arising where the death penalty is the appropriate sentence

and where, under the necessity of discipline, law and order, the judges may feel it highly desirable that they should pass the death sentence and yet, at the same time, would wish to have at the back of their minds the thought and knowledge that, the death sentence having been passed, it would still be possible for some higher authority to remit the sentence or impose a lesser penalty.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I have no reason whatever to know what sort of answer the Government will give to the appeals made to them, but it would not be unexpected if the Home Secretary said, "I quite recognise that there ought in most cases to be some right of appeal, and I propose to deal with it when I make the Regulations under the Bill." I hope that on this occasion, however, the Minister will not make that answer. I remember that in the Second Reading Debate, when it was suggested to the Government that the House was very ready to give them all the powers they desired, but thought those powers ought to be defined in the Bill, which ought not to be left as a kind of blank cheque to be filled in by the Government, the reply of the Attorney-General was that the Government could not, in a Bill where speed was necessary, provide a new judicature dealing with every point of principle and procedure in the way in which the administration of justice in this country would be normally dealt with. On the whole, I think that was a reasonable claim to make, but it ought not to be carried too far. There are some major points of principle which could be, and which ought to be, in the Bill. We cannot ask that they should all be closely defined, but when you are dealing with such elementary aspects of justice as the right of representation and the right of appeal, is there really any insuperable difficulty in putting them into the Bill?
If the Government took the view that an appeal or review should not be provided, no doubt they would make that case, and we should have to consider it on the merits. But if I am right, as I think I am, in assuming that they do not say that; if their view is that where circumstances permit, or in certain classes of cases, there should be some appeal or review—if they concede that principle


surely they will also concede the principle that on such an important point the right of appeal should be safeguarded in the Bill itself and not left to the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman or his successors or to some discussions in which, necessarily, only a few of us can take part. I agree that it may not be possible to define that right in detail in the Bill. I agree that it may be necessary to deal with some part of it by Regulation, but unless the Government say that there should be no review or appeal at all, provision should be made for it in the Bill If the Government concede the principle of a review or appeal, let them make no bones about it. Let them make sure that that right is preserved to the citizen, in the Bill itself, so that it shall not be open to any Government or any Minister at any future time, to deprive any accused person of a right which he ought to have, without getting the authority of this House for such deprivation. It cannot be a matter of argument that in most cases the right of appeal or review ought to exist, and if that is common ground, I see no reason why the Bill should not provide for it and put it beyond dispute.

4.4 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I am not sure what the Mover of the Amendment has in mind. It is not clear whether he wants an appeal from the sentences of these special courts or a confirmatory review of their findings. If the former, my own view is that if it is decided that these special courts are necessary in the circumstances of the time, it will be impossible to have the ordinary machinery of appeal such as now exists. Obviously, that would defeat the end for which the courts are being established. But if the Mover of the Amendment had in mind that there should be a review of the findings of the court and not an appeal against those findings, I cannot see why the Government should not strengthen its position in the eyes of the people by making it clear, in the Bill and not in the Regulations, that the findings of these courts will be subject—in the same way as the findings of courts martial and in no other way—to review by some other individual who will countersign the sentences.
In the case of the ordinary sentence of imprisonment or a fine, I do not think there is much which need trouble us. No

doubt, at the end of this war, which may come soon, or may be a long time ahead—though I think perhaps it will be soon—any sentences of these courts, which are thought to be manifestly unjust, will be capable of review. They can be brought up in this House with the demand that an inquiry and review should take place. But the death sentence is a different thing. You can remit a sentence of imprisonment which has been passed on a man, and you can return him what he has paid as a fine, but if he has been hanged or flogged you can never undo it. As far as the death sentence is concerned, there should be confirmation of the findings of the court by somebody else, I do not mind by whom—it may be the Home Secretary, or the Chief Commissioner, or the senior military officer of the district. But somebody else should confirm the finding in the same way as the findings of courts-martial are confirmed. I do not think the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) was correct when he said that in the case of courts-martial there was no review but there was an appeal. It is the other way round.

Mr. Messer: What I did say was that there was no other case except in martial law in which there was no review.

Sir A. Southby: I thought the hon. Member said "courts-martial."

Mr. Messer: No, martial law.

Sir A. Southby: I think the object of the Government is to strengthen, in the minds of the people, belief in these courts, and the feeling in this Committee and certainly the feeling outside, is that whoever may be president of a court, however good a judge he may be, one man's finding ought not to stand without being countersigned by somebody else. As I say, in the case of fines it does not matter so much, but in the case of the death sentence such a procedure is essential and I think it the duty of hon. Members here to see that some provision to that effect is put, not into the Regulations but into the Bill which is the proper place for it. We should not be doing our duty, if we did not press the Government to insert such a provision in the Bill. I know that the Home Secretary is anxious to meet us. No doubt there are legal difficulties in the way, but I ask him to give the matter earnest consideration. This


Amendment may not carry out exactly what the Mover intended, but some form of words might be found which would make it clear that there was to be some review of the finding of the court, apart from that involved in the existing exercise of the prerogative of mercy by the Crown.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Hannah: It was impossible not to be impressed by the speech of the Mover of the Amendment, and it is unnecessary to enlarge on what has been said. Roger Ascham says somewhere that when you want to say a thing over again, it is much better to repeat the same words, instead of pretending that it is something different. I agree with practically everything that has been said by the previous speakers. This Bill, undoubtedly, has roused a certain amount of suspicion in the country. Nobody can deny that. I cannot imagine anything which would do more to remove that suspicion than the acceptance of this Amendment, apart from the very high respect which we all feel for the hon. Gentleman who moved it. The Amendment can do good, and I do not see how it can do any harm. Therefore, I strongly urge it on the Home Secretary.

4.9 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): I realise that concern has been felt in many quarters of the Committee with regard to the matter now under discussion, and I say, frankly, that I appreciate and sympathise with that concern. I shall try to clear the issue. I think there are several considerations that we should, if possible, keep clearly in mind. In the first place, when we talk of a review, we must be clear what we mean by a review. We might mean a review by some judicial process. We might mean the sort of review which takes place in connection with the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy. That is the first point on which we have to be clear. There is also this important consideration in connection with any review of sentences. The review of a sentence which is not a sentence of death is one thing. It can be undertaken, within limits, at any point of time, but if there is to be a review of a death sentence, it must, for practical reasons, be within a very limited period of time.
Let me say first that what we had mainly in mind in inserting these words which it is proposed to leave out, was a review of a judicial nature. It seemed to the Government, having regard to the circumstances in which these special courts would be set up, that however desirable in theory it might be to provide for some further judicial review by way of appeal, or by way of processes more familiar to hon. Members learned in the law than to me—though I know the names by which they go, such as "mandamus" and "certiorari" and so forth—it seemed to us inconsistent with the purpose of the Bill, which is to provide a simple, expeditious, criminal procedure, to attempt to include provisions for a further judicial review. When we come to the other question of the review in connection with the Prerogative, it was never in our minds—and I want to make this perfectly clear—that we should seek to exclude, either in the case of the capital sentence or in the case of lesser sentences, the right which everyone has to appeal to the clemency of the Crown. Indeed, in the case of the death sentence, as I think hon. Members know, a review is made by the Home Secretary as a matter of course, irrespective of any representations which may be made by a convicted person before sentence of death is carried out.
In regard to what I have said about a judicial review, I think I have made it clear that we do not consider that, in practice, it would be possible to make provision for such a review. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) appeared to have in mind something of an intermediate nature between a judicial review and a review in connection with the exercise of the Prerogative, when he spoke of some other person countersigning the sentence. I think he had in mind the analogy of a court-martial, but I do not think there is an analogy between the proceedings of a court-martial and those of the sort of court contemplated in this Bill, a court which will be presided over in every case, we believe, by an officer experienced in judicial work of a high order. We hope that for the most part, the presidents of these courts will be judges of the High Court. It would surely be out of the question to provide that sentences passed by a judge of the High Court or a


person of corresponding standing, should he countersigned, as it were, by some other person.

Major Milner: Sentences are frequently altered on appeal.

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, sentences are altered on appeal in some cases, but, as practical men, we cannot see that it is possible in this case to provide for an appeal by judicial process. I do not want, however, to be difficult or obstructive, and I suggest that we might go a long way to meet the genuine difficulties and misgivings of those who have criticised the Bill as it stands, by introducing two Amendments. I will indicate the general effect of the Amendments which I have in mind. In the first place, we might add words to make clear that the kind of review which will be excluded or which may be excluded, is review by judicial process or review by a court. That is the first Amendment, which might, perhaps, be made on the Report stage. The other Amendment which I would suggest deals with the particular case of the death sentence.
I am quite willing to propose on Report the insertion of words which will make it quite clear that provision must be made by Regulations for securing that no sentence of death shall be carried out until the question of reprieve has been duly considered. [HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"] That means considered by those whose duty it is to advise the Crown, because a reprieve is the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy, and only a Minister can effectively consider what advice should be given to the Crown. There is nothing at all in the Bill to suggest that any exercise of the Prerogative which would be available in ordinary circumstances is to be excluded in the case of persons tried by these special courts. Whether the sentence be a capital sentence or something less, the Prerogative remains intact. In regard to the death sentence, there will be a specific provision to ensure that the Regulations shall provide that such a sentence shall not be carried into effect until there has been proper consideration of the question whether the Prerogative of mercy can be exercised.

Mr. Messer: Could not the right hon. Gentleman more easily do that if these words were deleted?

Sir J. Anderson: That is rather a technical matter. We will bring up whatever form of words we think most appropriate on Report. I am dealing with the substance of the thing now. I am not a lawyer, but am dealing with it from the point of view of the Home Secretary, as the Minister responsible for the Bill. Putting in the words that I suggest in regard to the death sentence will not, of course, have the effect of limiting the exercise of the Prerogative in other cases. Cases in which a lesser sentence is imposed are, from a practical point of view, on an entirely different footing from the case of the death sentence. In the case of sentences less than the death sentence there will be nothing to prevent the Home Secretary, the Minister responsible, from reviewing at any time in whatever way he thinks most appropriate, individual sentences or sentences in general which may have been passed in a time of grave emergency in a particular area. The Prerogative will remain absolutely intact. I hope that what I have said will go some way, perhaps a long way, to relieve the anxieties of hon. Members in this matter.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Evans (Universitiy of Wales): The Home Secretary has made a very important speech, and he expressed the hope that it might allay a good deal of the difficulty which many of us feel. First of all, let me dispose of the trouble that has arisen in the course of the discussion between the word "review" and the word "appeal." As far as these courts are concerned, I have admitted from the first that I did not see how the Home Secretary could give a right of appeal, but in regard to review I felt that there was a case for pressing upon him the desirability of meeting apprehensions which had been expressed. To-day he has told us he is trying to meet our difficulty by saying that he will give a review. He has offered us a review of the sentence, not a review of the decision, but only a limited review of the sentence in the case of the death penalty. What is to happen in the other cases? In saying that, he is not giving us any concession at all. The right of reviewing a sentence of death is inherent in the Crown, and he cannot take it away from the Crown. No one else can take it away from the Crown. He is not making any concession by saying he is prepared to review sentences of death.
But there is a much more considerable point than that. These courts are being given very great powers. There may be cases in which the accused person is entitled to complain that he has not had a fair trial, and it must be remembered that it is a trial by two or three persons. It is not a trial by jury. I was hoping the right hon. Gentleman would say, "I will make provision that a review shall be provided." He has not done that. I am wondering why. He has asked for most of the trouble that he has got. In this case he has asked for it because in this Clause he talks about the proceedings of such courts being subject to no review or to such review as may be so provided. What had he in mind when he introduced the Bill? Did he have it in mind that there should be no review in any circumstances? If so, why did he not say so? Or did he have it in view that there should be a review in certain cases? He must have held the one view or the other, so why on earth go to the trouble of saying either "subject to no review" or "subject to such review as I under Regulations may declare"? It is simply adding to the difficulty and absurdity of the whole situation to introduce a Clause containing those words.
There is, however, a much more serious issue of very grave constitutional concern, because the right hon. Gentleman introduced into his speech two words of whose meaning he said he did not pretend to be perfectly certain—"mandamus" and "certiorari." I understood, on my reading of the Bill, that whatever powers the Home Secretary took to himself, the old rights of mandamus and certiorari were not affected, and I think I am not alone in so thinking. I did not raise it before, because I took that to be the position. But the Home Secretary himself has introduced a statement which completely revolutionises the position, because, as I understand it, he interprets the Bill as giving him the right to deprive citizens of the country of the old standing rights of mandamus and certiorari. I should like to know from the Attorney-General whether that is the position, because, if it is, the House will not let him have the Bill this week or next. So long as those fundamental rights of the British citizen are still preserved, whatever powers the Home Secretary may require for defence purposes, I am prepared to let the Bill go though, but if he tells me it means that

those fundamental rights are to be taken away from citizenship of the country, I will fight the Bill line by line, word by word, on the beaches, on the hills, and everywhere else. I hope the Home Secretary will reconsider in the course of the next half-hour whether he really meant what he said about that, because it is the most serious thing I have heard proposed in the House or anywhere else. I beg him to clear up the matter once and for all.

4.26 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I think there is some misconception about mandamus and certiorari. They are writs directed to inferior courts, primarily directed to a state of affairs when an inferior court may have exceeded its jurisdiction. These special courts will have complete criminal jurisdiction. The whole basis of this Bill is that there should be a court ready to try any offence, however serious, which the military situation demands should be tried speedily. Therefore, it seems to me that the idea that some right is being taken away, or that people anticipated that these courts would be subject to a writ which is directed to absence of jurisdiction in an inferior court really misconceives the position which these courts will have.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I have little or no acquaintance with these legal definitions. I approach the matter, as I imagine most of my hon. Friends will, from a practical and commonsense point of view, indeed from the standpoint of the man in the street. When some of us met the Home Secretary we expressed great concern on this matter, and I gathered that he was somewhat apprehensive himself of the effect of the action that is contemplated in the Bill. He promised, as I understood at the time, to furnish a form of words which might meet the views which were then expressed, and which indeed have been expressed in the course of this Debate, but the offer that he has made in the two suggested Amendments does not go as far as some of us would like. As it seems to me, the review that he proposes is no more than the Prerogative itself. After all, it is always open for the legal representative of the person sentenced to death to apply for an appeal. The Prerogative


is always there, and, as I understand it, it takes the form that representations are first of all made to the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, I detect no substantial difference.
What is the right hon. Gentleman's purpose in this regard? He envisaged circumstances where speedy legal process is essential. But surely that only applies to an area where there is possible confusion or disorganisation and where the courts cannot normally function. Surely, it will not apply to the whole of the country, and it will be possible for a court of appeal, for example, to function in some part of the country where confusion does not reign. Suppose that a court of the kind contemplated in the Bill sat in the North-Eastern part of the country or in Wales, where there was confusion arising out of military operations or apprehended military operations, and a sentence of death was passed by the civil court. Surely, the appeal against that sentence could be heard in London, or Oxford, or Reading, or Cirencester, or in any part of the country where it was possible for a court to function normally. Consequently, I cannot see why an appeal of the kind suggested should not be permitted.
I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman a point of view which I have expressed before. I can envisage, in the circumstances resulting from a state of confusion arising from military operations, that there would be a breakdown of the food distributing machinery, and, as a consequence, working men and their wives might be unable to obtain food supplies. Is it not possible for hon. Members to contemplate that those people, in a state of starvation or semi-starvation, might engage in what is ordinarily described as looting—taking a loaf of bread from a nearby baker's shop that has been vacated because of military operations, or purloining a tin of salmon or corned beef? I understand this would be regarded as looting, and it might well be that, in the circumstances prevailing, a civil court might regard such an act as justifying a sentence of death, largely from the standpoint of its deterrent effect. I understand that one of the primary purposes of the Measure is that it should act as a deterrent against looting. I do not want to see any working-class friend of

mine or of any hon. Member placed in that position.

Sir A. Southby: Anybody—we are all in the boat together.

Mr. Shinwell: Anybody faced with the possibility of starvation might be tempted to do the same thing. I do not want to see anybody placed in that unfortunate position. It seems to me that there ought to be a right of review, in the sense of a right of appeal, to the highest court in the land. I cannot see that there would be any physical difficulty in constituting a court of appeal so that sentences of this kind could be properly reviewed, with evidence submitted, if need be, and proper representations of a legal character tendered. In the case of minor offences or lengthy sentences—when, for example, a person is sentenced to 10 years' or 15 years' imprisonment—the matter is not the same, because such sentences are always open to review. Questions might be asked in the House at any time and there might be a reduction of the sentence. When a man has been sentenced to death, however, and the sentence has been carried out, I cannot see that there is any advantage in asking questions in the House or making representations to the Home Secretary. There is a vital distinction between sentences of imprisonment for any kind of misdemeanour and sentences of death that may be passed by a civil court. I appeal to the Home Secretary to carry the matter a little further and not content himself with the very modest proposal he has made. The right hon. Gentleman must in this matter bow to the will of the Committee, and to what I imagine is the will of the whole country. We go a long way with him in this Bill. We are anxious to prevent looting or crimes being committed at a time when it is essential that organisation and good conduct shall prevail. At the same time, we do not want to place in the hands of the new judiciary which is being established by this Bill power to sentence people to death for crimes which ordinarily might entail only a modest sentence. I hope the Home Secretary will re-consider the matter and agree to the Amendment that has been moved.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: With regard to what was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, I think that he was very largely


wrong concerning the law. In the first place, prohibition and certiorari can be directed only to inferior courts, but mandamus can be directed to a much wider range of courts. He was wrong also in telling the Committee that these courts could not be inferior courts. One cannot tell until the Regulations are made what sort of jurisdiction they will have, and—speaking offhand, and it may be wrongly—my first impression is most emphatically that any court set up under the powers given by this Bill, and described as a special court, even if it were given full jurisdiction, would be regarded by the High Court of Justice as a court inferior in the sense that it would be a court to which the High Court could direct either prohibition or certiorari. There may be some hon. Members who are lawyers who disagree with me in that.
The really important point is not whether the Attorney-General was right or wrong in describing what he believes to be the effect of the Bill in this matter, but what is the Government's intention, because there are still opportunities to make this Bill one thing or the other. From the Attorney-General's point of view, it is plain that the Government intend that the High Court shall not test the powers of these courts in any way, by prohibition certiorari, mandamus, review, or anything else. Consequently, if that be the view of the Government—and we know that it is not only the view but the intention of the Government—we shall have to govern ourselves accordingly. When one puts this together with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, it means that the Government's desire and intention are that these courts shall be subject to no sort of review anyhow or anywhere, except, of course, that there can be an appeal to the Prerogative of the Crown. There can always be an appeal to the Prerogative of the Crown. The only thing which the Home Secretary has offered is that any person in respect of whom anybody wants to make an appeal to the Prerogative of the Crown shall not be dead before the appeal is made, but shall be kept waiting until the Home Secretary has had an opportunity for an examination.
I cannot see the difficulty about providing for a review. I can understand more or less that summary and strong courts, the decisions and sentences of

which shall be clear and unquestionable, are wanted in time of great emergency, when there cannot be a lot of paraphernalia. Once the court has convicted a man and passed a sentence on him, it is either a sentence of death or it is not. If it is a sentence of death, the Home Secretary offers to keep the man alive until an application can be made to the Home Secretary about him; if it is not a sentence of death, it will be the duty of the executive to keep the man alive and in custody. If one can go to the Home Secretary and talk about the man, what is the difficulty in going to some judicial court and talking about an appeal? If it be said that it would destroy public confidence in these special courts if provision for an appeal was made, then we have followed up till now a very efficient method of destroying confidence in all courts, because all courts except two are subject to a right of appeal, and that fact is one of the reasons they work very well. It is a commonplace among all lawyers that, except in courts of the very highest wisdom, one way of making them work badly is to let them know that they are not subject to appeal. It is a question of human failings, and judges are human. In courts where, for one reason or another, in respect of particular cases or in respect of all cases, they happen to be free of perhaps even the entirely subconscious check of the fact that what they say and do may be reviewed in the Court of Appeal, they do not behave as well as courts which are subject to appeal.
Therefore, I humbly suggest to the Committee, first, that the Attorney-General has pointed out that the Government intend to deprive us of one group of remedies which we all thought were present, and which certainly ought to be present; and secondly, that the Home Secretary is offering us, with an air of great plausibility, as a reason for our not pressing the Amendment, something which amounts to absolutely nothing. I suggest further that full and proper provision for appeal, as long as it is not vexatious or long-drawn-out, would make no difference whatever to the efficiency of the courts set up under this Bill.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: I should like to follow the first point that was made by the hon. and learned Member for North


Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). I listened very carefully to the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I should always have the greatest diffidence in appearing to differ from him on a matter of law, but it occurs to me that this afternoon there was perhaps something which he overlooked, and I wish to put the point to him. He suggested that it was not reasonable to anticipate circumstances in which proceedings by way of certiorari would be possible in respect of one of these special courts because they would have so wide a jurisdiction in the criminal law that it would not be possible to suggest that something before them was a matter which they could decide. Did he not overlook the fact that these courts may have a very sharp territorial limit?
Suppose that a court is set up for the County of Norfolk, and that an offence takes place in the County of Suffolk. Does my right hon. and learned Friend tell us that if the person who commits the offence is apprehended and taken before the special court in Norfolk, he will not have the right before the High Court to take proceedings by way of certiorari, and say that the special court had no jurisdiction in his case? Surely, that is a very serious point, and either the Attorney-General overlooked it, or we are all under a misapprehension as to what powers would be left to the High Court in the matter. Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us whether, in a case where a person is apprehended outside the limit of jurisdiction of the special court, brought within their limit of jurisdiction, and tried by them, such a person would have any right by proceedure in the High Court to object to being tried by the special court?

4.44 p.m.

The Attorney-General: We are considering what powers can be taken under the Bill. If a court proceeded on the basis of having no jurisdiction, it might be that the whole proceedings would be null and void, and that might apply to proceedings in the High Court itself. What I was indicating in my previous remarks was that these words would give power to put these courts on the same basis as the High Court, and that as it was the intention of my right hon. Friend, and obviously the basis of the whole idea, that

their jurisdiction should be complete, it did not seem to me that the circumstances in which certiorari or prohibition are a valuable right would in fact ever come into existence. So far as Norfolk and Suffolk are concerned, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) has, no doubt, been following the various changes in the administration of justice made necessary by the war, and he will have seen that so far as the ordinary courts are concerned, for obvious reasons, the ordinary rules as to venue have been relaxed, in view of the fact that we might be faced with circumstances where courts could not operate in particular cases, and where the rigidity of old principles of venue would impede the administration of justice. In certain cases the ordinary law of venue has already been relaxed by this House. It would be clearly right that the Regulations should provide for such elasticity with regard to venue, so that the problem put by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester would not arise. The point of justice is that the trial should always take place under circumstances in which witnesses for the prosecution and the defence—

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I am afraid that the Attorney-General has misconceived the whole point. It is not a question of venue or rules as to where a court shall try an offence, but a question of whether an area in which the alleged offence was committed is an area covered by an Order. Taking the example of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), suppose it had been declared that Suffolk was an area to which this Act should apply, and that just beyond the border of that area an offence had been committed, and in that case the special court to deal with the alleged offences went across the border outside its area of jurisdiction. That would not be a question of venue but whether the court had any jurisdiction. If I understood the question of the hon. Member for Colchester, is it not plain that the High Court would have no power to prevent the special court abrogating to itself a jurisdiction which it did not have?

4.47 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I venture to suggest that, in spite of the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), what I was saying is relevant. In practice I do not think the case which


the hon. Member for Colchester suggested will arise. Let me deal with the question on the basis of jurisdiction. It is our intention that these courts, vis à vis, the High Court, should be on an equality. If one takes the analogy within the United Kingdom, these courts take the position of our own courts and the Scottish courts. It might be said that according to ordinary principles there was no jurisdiction in the Scottish courts to try something which had happened here, or for our courts to try anything which had happened in Scotland. In this case prohibition would not lie, nor does prohibition arise from one division of the High Court to another or from one High Court to another. For example, if there were grounds for thinking that the Divisional Court in a criminal cause or matter had done something in which it had no jurisdiction, there is no other division of the High Court to which you could go to get a writ of prohibition or a mandamus. The suggestion is that in these very exceptional circumstances these courts should be in the same position, vis à vis the High Court, as, say, the courts of assize, namely, that you cannot get a writ of prohibition from one against the other.

Mr. E. Evans: When the Attorney-General said that it is the intention that these courts shall be on the same basis as the High Courts, how is that intention to be carried out? Is it to be put in the Regulations? It is no good saying that that is the intention unless the Attorney-General proposes to take that course.

The Attorney-General: It is intended to put it in the Regulations, and this Bill is to enable Regulations to be made setting up courts. The Amendment which we are discussing is an Amendment relating to defining the scope of what can be done in the Regulations.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: I intervene in order to try to bring the Committee back to what we were discussing. I am bound to say that whatever misapprehension there may be between eminent counsel in the Committee, I have no such misapprehension at all. It seems to be perfectly clear that it was the intention of the Government to set up special courts from which there would be no appeal of any kind. That was the intention from

the very beginning, and if that intention is not embodied in the Bill, it will be, as the Attorney-General says, embodied in the Regulations. As to whether that is a good thing, or a bad thing, I am not concerned, but what I am concerned about is that, as there will be no ordinary review from these courts, what sort of appeal ought we to give to an accused person? I do not know the names of all these things, but I believe I know the principles behind them. If it is possible for the ordinary process of justice to be applied in these cases, that prohibition and mandamus can be used, obviously the very obstructive process which the right hon. Gentleman wants to avoid will be introduced. The Attorney-General says, "Not at all. It is precisely because these courts are to work with expedition that this Bill has been brought in."
What does the right hon. Gentleman suggest? He suggested that in the case of a death penalty it would be desirable that he should review the sentence before it was executed. What in practice does that mean? It means, in fact, that in the middle of a great crisis when the Minister is involved in dealing with a large number of very important matters, he is suggesting that he will be able to deal with such cases quickly and give adequate attention to the decisions of these courts in respect of the death penalty. Is that a reasonable proposition? He suggested that it would be unreasonable to have any judicial authority to review the decisions of the High Court. That in fact will be done by the right hon. Gentleman in the Home Office. He will not stand before the Committee and suggest that he will be able to give these cases the attention they deserve nor that he can satisfy himself whether the death sentence shall be carried out or not. I suggest, firstly, that physically he will not be able to do it, and, secondly, that he ought to be exempted from the necessity of doing it. If he says that he already does it, my reply is that in such cases the accused person has come to him after having gone through several processes of law, and that, therefore, it is a comparatively limited matter he has to decide. But in this case he will have to review the death sentence passed by one court and one court only, and to do it adequately he will have to take into account all the facts. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should not set himself up as a High Court judge, which, in fact, he would be doing to do


the job properly. I do not think that a political office such as that occupied by the right hon. Gentleman should be exposed in the way it will be in the kind of circumstances that he has in mind. Many of these decisions may be highly controversial, and he seems to me to be taking a heavy burden upon himself in asking for these powers.
Is there not another very practical consideration to be borne in mind? The hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) addressed a very cogent argument. What happens? These courts are set up in conditions of emergency in a highly charged emotional atmosphere. But that highly charged emotional atmosphere will not be confined to where the courts exist. Does anyone suggest that the whole atmosphere of the country will not at once be changed? We shall all be living under conditions of crisis, and those feelings will be shared by the three judges, by a large number of people in the country, and particularly by the right hon. Gentleman. It is not merely a matter of taking the sentenced person from the area of disturbance, and letting his case be considered by the Home Secretary; it is time that matters. Time should elapse in order that the emotional atmosphere shall settle down before the review takes place. Why is it necessary to carry out these sentences at once? The individuals are in custody, and their powers of harm have been taken away. They cannot injure anyone. But if it is said that you are going to execute a person as a deterrent, then you must shoot him on the spot. If you are envisaging the kind of circumstances which might arise, you must make a spectacle of the offence, but the means of communication would also be disturbed, which would make that impossible. So the right hon. Gentleman's intentions will not be discharged by the method he has suggested in the Bill. I suggest that it is a perfectly reasonable proposition to have some form of review, not a review by the Home Secretary and not an appeal to the Home Secretary. There is no reason why there should not be a judicial tribunal established, ad hoc, not known to the judicature at the moment, nor related to the special courts, and that a special legal tribunal should review the sentences.
May I suggest a further consideration? It is the difficulty of collecting proper

evidence in circumstances of this kind. A sentence of death might be passed upon an accused person by one of these courts on evidence which had been collected very hurriedly and hardly tested in circumstances of the kind we envisage in which the court would want its sentence carried out quickly. The review by the Home Secretary will occur soon afterwards because, for reasons which I cannot understand, expedition, according to the right hon. Gentleman, is the essence of this business. The man is executed without any chance having been given to collect fresh evidence. He might have been able in normal times to collect evidence which was not available to him at the time of his trial, evidence which would satisfy the Home Secretary that the sentence was wrong. Ought we to withhold reasonable safeguards from the accused person? The right hon. Gentleman has not made out his case. Conceding everything he wants under the Bill, and even conceding that a special court of this kind, abstracted from the ordinary system of the judicature, is necessary, there is no reason under Heaven why we should not import into the Bill an opportunity for the sentence to be reviewed by a higher legal tribunal in calmer circumstances.

5.2 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Surely this Debate is an indication of the astonishingly phlegmatic character of the British people. With something like a very grave crisis impending, we have spent hours last night and a long time this afternoon discussing the details of what is, I admit, an important Bill. With the greatest respect, I would ask some of the hon. Members who have spoken against the Bill and who may have been in France, or who have firsthand knowledge of what happened there, to realise that time is the essence of progress in a matter like this. This country differs from other countries because we have not frontiers contiguous with those of other countries, from which refugees could pour in here, and also because our people are more phlegmatic. We are not likely to have the same difficulties as other countries. On the other hand, as I look out from my house over many square miles of country, all of which is in a defence area, I can conceive a situation arising of the greatest import, in which there would be an immediate


necessity for courts such as those we are discussing able to take instant action for the preservation of the State and the British Army.
I respectfully appeal to hon. Members to be a little less critical about the details of the Bill and to remember that the Home Secretary has already made a promise that the Regulations will be discussed and that representative Members will have an opportunity of examining them. I suggest, therefore, that the words which the Amendment proposes to leave out should remain and that we should trust the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General. It is amazing that it should be hinted, to put it no higher, that these courts are to be set up to act as some terrible scourge on the people of this country. I do not apprehend that anything of the kind is likely to happen. The point has been raised whether somebody who committed a crime in Norfolk is likely to be able to say that the court is not justified in trying him because it is sitting in Suffolk, There is nothing in the Bill to say where the courts should be set up, and that matter could easily be put right. I am seeking to persuade hon. Members who have spoken against the Bill, to withdraw their strictures and criticisms and to realise that to-day, to-night or tomorrow we may be in the thick of a stupendous crisis. I trust that the Home Secretary will not accept the Amendment and that Members will realise what a staggering situation may arise within a few hours.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: The Home Secretary has made no concession. The effect of his statement is that there will be consideration of sentences by the Home Secretary as there is at the present time. Everyone took that for granted; at least, I did, and I cannot understand the type of mind which thought that that would not be done. Surely in setting up these courts it was the intention of the Home Secretary to have that constant review of death sentences which is implicit in the Prerogative. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) said that Members would not talk as they did if they had been to France, and that we might soon be in the midst of a terrible crisis. What happened in France that would make it impossible for courts like those

proposed, to have their decisions subject to a review by a higher authority? There was nothing at all.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Surely it is common knowledge that practically from one end of France to another, chaos reigned and no courts could act properly.

Mr. Stephen: The hon. and gallant Member does not carry his argument any further. If there was chaos in France and the courts could not function, obviously, according to him, this Bill is useless, because courts could not function if the same thing happened here. I think that there is a lot of defeatism and "jitters" in the minds of Members of the Government in connection with this matter.

Mr. Thurtle: And in the minds of others, too.

Mr. Stephen: We have had experience of it already in the fact that the Prime Minister had to state yesterday that a lot of sentences that had been imposed, would be revised because of the evident misunderstanding of statements by the Minister of Information and of the action that magistrates took. Probably those mistakes would not have been corrected had it not been for some organs of the Press like the "Evening Standard" and the "Evening News," which showed great common sense in connection with this matter. I cannot see why there should not be set up, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) suggested, an ad hoc appeal tribunal to which cases could go.
I suggest that a good deal of the difficulty in this matter arises from the imposition of the death sentence. Would it not be better to consider whether it is necessary to impose the death sentence and whether many of the difficulties in this matter might not be overcome, if the maximum penalty were life imprisonment? That would give an opportunity for revision in calmer times. The individuals concerned would be detained in the hands of the authorities and they could do no further harm. My impression, after lisening to the Debates on this Bill, is that the Government largely misunderstands the situation. I do not think that the chances of invasion are very great because I have heard so much about the strength of the British Navy and our


armed forces, and I do not think the people of this country should allow themselves to get so "jittery" and to think that the Germans are super-men, as some of them do. I would like the Home Secretary to consider carefully whether the real solution of this problem is not an ad hoc tribunal to which cases involving the death sentence could be referred.

5.14 p.m.

Colonel Gretton: This discussion has wandered very largely over legal arguments, which are always a mystery to the layman. Apparently there is always a division of opinion on legal matters and it is difficult to get unanimous agreement about them. It seems to me that these arguments are on a side line and have nothing to do with the main point. We are trying, in different ways, to secure that the severe sentences of these courts should not be the sentences of one court or one man, but should be subject to some kind of review. It is very desirable that the courts should act quickly and that sentences should be imposed and carried out without delay. For that reason, the severe sentences only should be subject to revision. It is really unthinkable that the death sentence, on which the argument in this Debate has centred, should be imposed without any review whatsoever on the ipse dixit of one judge, sitting, certainly, with assessors who would, however, be colleagues having no power to modify or influence his decision except by the expression of their opinion. I am not pressing that there should be a retrial of cases, because that would be a mistake, that would involve delay; but a revision by some other legal authority of higher calibre would go far to meet the objections of very many Members of this Committee.
The Home Secretary has really given us nothing. I think we all agree that there is no substance in what he proposed. It does not go any distance whatever to meet the objection that these very severe and heavy sentences, especially death sentences, can be imposed on the ipse dixit of one judge, of one court. It has been suggested that the existence of the Royal Prerogative should not be lost sight of, but that has always been operative, and there is nothing in this Bill to upset that. But there should be some-

thing more, and there is great force in the argument used by an hon. Member who recently addressed the Committee, that the Home Secretary will be heavily engaged with many other matters and not able to spare the time to consider revisions of death sentences and the advice which he may have to give to the Crown as to whether the Royal Prerogative should be exercised or not. I do not want to carry the matter too tar, and I have an Amendment later which would secure that lighter sentences need not be subject to revision, but these heavier sentences are a very different matter.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Having listened to this discussion, I think that the view of the Committee, as a whole, is fairly clear to us, and it is not an extreme view. I gather that the Committee wishes that there should be a review. The Home Secretary said that he would make a review, but the Committee wish for a review by some judicial as distinct from administrative authority. Although like the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), I know little about the law, I am very much impressed by the argument of one of my hon. Friends that a court sitting in these circumstances, with the knowledge that there will be no possibility of appeal or review from its findings, is likely to be a good deal more hasty and slap-dash than would be the case if it knew that its verdict, if too high-handed, could be upset. It would be a great pity to have a Division on this question, but I am sure that the Home Secretary sees that there will be a Division unless he makes some concession, and I ask whether it is not possible to set up an ad hoc tribunal of a judicial character which should act with considerable rapidity, almost with the same rapidity as the right hon. Gentleman himself would have to act. If he would make some proposal of that sort and arrange for it to be inserted in the Bill at a later stage, we might avoid a Division on this proposal.

5.20 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson:: I should like to re-emphasise the point that was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) and a point made earlier in the discussion by the hon. Member for South Tottenham


(Mr. Messer) that we have been in danger in this Debate of forgetting the sort of contingency for which we are trying to provide. We are trying to provide the means by which, as far as is humanly possible, we can avoid recourse to processes of an exceedingly summary character. If we do not set up these special courts and make as good provisions as we can, having regard to the conditions for which we are legislating, to render unnecessary a recourse to methods of summary justice, that course will be inevitable in the conditions of confusion and turmoil which we must contemplate and we shall be doing no service to our people. If we do not have these courts then, as the hon. Member for South Tottenham said, we may have instead what has been described as martial law. We may have the military authorities driven to the necessity, against their will, of dealing with offenders out of hand in order to cope with the situation which has arisen.

Sir I. Albery: I think it might be wise for the Home Secretary to get this point clearly in his mind. Speaking for myself, and I think probably for many others, I say that if it were a question of martial law, or military law, with the safeguards which are provided under it, I would much prefer it to this Bill with no safeguards.

Sir J. Anderson: I know that is the view of some of my hon. Friends and, as was pointed out on Second Reading, I think it is a wholly mistaken view, because under what is described as martial law or military law, safeguards are conspicuously absent. My hon. Friend is really talking of something quite different. He is talking of courts-martial, which are an entirely different matter. We really must try to keep our minds clear on this subject.
It was suggested by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and repeated by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) that what I had offered was no concession at all. The hon. Member for Camlachie said that he had assumed all the time that the Prerogative would remain intact, and that there would be no possibility of a death sentence being carried out before there had been adequate opportunity of considering whether the case was one in

which the Prerogative of mercy could properly be exercised. On that, all I can say is that I have discussed this Bill with a number of hon. Members, and I have very clearly in my mind the conviction that many of them were not at all satisfied that the words, which formed the subject of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey), might not be held to have the effect of ousting the Prerogative which, after all, does involve something in the nature of a review. The first concession that I offered was designed to make it perfectly clear that that would not happen.
Let me come to the other point, the execution of the death sentence. I wonder whether hon. Members realise that under the ordinary law of this country, as it stands, there is no provision, nothing in the Statute law of the country designed to ensure that a death sentence shall not be carried out before there has been the opportunity for the Home Secretary to give consideration to the question of the exercise of the Prerogative. That is the fact. There is no provision whatever in the Statute law. It is a matter entirely provided for by rules made by the Executive, not, I think, under the control of Parliament. Surely it is rather unfair to say that it represents no concession at all to put into this Bill what many hon. Members have been asking for, a definite provision to do what I have said we always intended to do, namely, to secure that there shall be adequate time for consideration before a death sentence can be carried out. I claim with confidence that that proposal does represent a very definite safeguard introduced in the way it has been asked for by hon. Members—by an express provision in the Bill itself.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) said he could not quite see how it would be possible for the Home Secretary to give adequate time to the consideration of matters that might come before him in connection with the exercise of the Prerogative. Let me make it clear that in the case of a capital sentence the exercise of the Prerogative is not dependent upon any application or appeal from anybody, it is automatic in every case, and whatever you do with this Bill, you will not relieve the Home Secretary of that responsibility. In considering the exercise of the Prerogative he has to


take into account many matters, and often they are the most important, the most relevant and sometimes the most difficult matters, which it would be entirely outside the competence of any court to take into consideration, matters that have nothing to do with the guilt or innocence in law of the convicted person and are essentially not matters for a judicial authority. The Home Secretary, or rather the Secretary of State, has that responsibility upon him. We may hope that if these courts have to be set up, the number of capital sentences resulting may not be many—we hope so, we cannot be sure—but whether they be few or many it will be essential that the Secretary of State should put himself in a position to discharge adequately his responsibility in connection with the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy. He can summon to his aid all sorts of expert advice, and if it became absolutely necessary, his powers could be shared, and are in fact sometimes shared, with other Secretaries of State. That is a very relevant consideration.
The hon. Member for Camlachie suggested that the fact that we contemplate having to make Regulations, under which the death penalty could be imposed for offences which do not involve the death penalty under the ordinary law, was responsible for the chief trouble, and that if only we could make up our minds to do without those special provisions there would be no difficulty. But I would point out that among the cases which will come before these special tribunals, and they may be the most important cases, will be cases of murder. In those cases there is the death penalty and no other penalty. There can, I suggest, be no other penalty. So, we cannot escape from our difficulties in that way. Let me say a word about the suggestion for setting up some form of tribunal of a judicial character to undertake the review of these cases. I have said before that it would really be inconsistent with the purpose of this Bill, and would defeat the purpose of the Bill, if the simple procedure which we contemplate were to be complicated by providing a system of courts of review or courts of appeal or whatever you may like to call them. It seems to me that that would be a very difficult and a very unsatisfactory halfway house between these courts which are to be set up with the

full powers of the High Court, and the kind of administrative review in connection with the exercise of the Prerogative, which I have said, must be available anyhow. It does not seem to me, from such experience as I have had, that it can be satisfactory to ask judges to come together to exercise functions otherwise than in accordance with the forms and processes to which they are accustomed.

Mr. Bevan: It has been done in other cases.

Sir J. Anderson: The whole point of the suggestion was that there should be a system of judicial review, with the emphasis on the word "judicial." There is nothing to prevent the Home Secretary, in the exercise of his responsibility, from associating with himself persons learned in the law and persons otherwise competent to advise him by having a machinery by which he could refer difficult cases to persons who would be sitting, frankly, not as judges. If you ask people to discharge a judicial function, it is essential that you should enable them to do so in accordance with the normal processes and traditions of the judicial office. I have no hesitation in saying that it would be quite unsatisfactory from the point of view of the purpose of this Bill, to adopt that procedure.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman has made only one point in the whole of his speech. We have made a suggestion which goes 75 per cent. of the way to meet him, but he does not give any argument against it. All he says is that he considers it unsatisfactory. These courts themselves are half-way houses. They are mere excrescences on the judicial body. The right hon. Gentleman says that the tribunal which I am suggesting would be a half-way house. We are endeavouring to meet him, and there is no reason why there should not be a legal tribunal to review these cases. He has not given us a single reason. All he has said is that you cannot have a tribunal of judges, unless you have the normal processes of the law, but you do not have the normal processes the law in these special courts.

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, you do.

Mr. Bevan: No, you do not. The whole system has been mutilated by these special courts. Why does the right hon.


Gentleman not try to meet the Committee in this matter? He has not made out a case. He knows it is just nonsense to say that he can review these cases himself. Why does he not agree to attach to himself, in the discharge of his functions a permanent legal tribunal—permanent while this emergency is on—in the review of these cases?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not want to prolong the discussion, and I appreciate the contribution which the hon. Gentleman has made. I do not think that I should have any objection, in principle, to associating with myself—I had better say with the Home Secretary—in the discharge of these functions, and in the exercise of the Prerogative, a body of persons legally qualified and highly expert to advise, so far as legal considerations may be involved. The hon. Gentleman said that I had given no argument, but I would remind him that the considerations which have to be weighed are not by any means all legal. So far as there are legal considerations we might make provision by Regulation for a body which would give advice and assistance to the Home Secretary, but I should like to think out that suggestion. I have no objection whatever in principle. I tell the Committee straight away that I certainly have had it in mind that, if the volume of work falling on the Home Secretary was such that he could not adequately deal with this matter through the ordinary machinery available to him, some such expedient as has been suggested might have to be adopted. I have no objection.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he might do by Regulation, what he has told the Committee he could not do by legislation.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Levy: I have listened to the Home Secretary and I say, with great respect and humility, that he has not convinced me. I think I shall be voicing the opinion of a good many hon. Members in saying that legislation by Regulation instead of by embodiment in a Bill, is something to which we all ought to take some objection. I am diametrically opposed to the arguments of the hon. Member who spoke about the British characteristic. Surely that characteristic is that justice shall be meted out in a just way. One man may have to hold power to impose sentence of life or death, probably in a

time of very great emotion. It is our duty, as Members of Parliament, to do what we are doing now, to discuss matters in a calm and collected fashion. The Home Secretary has endeavoured, to the best of his ability, to persuade Members of this Committee to his point of view. With great respect, I say that he has not succeeded, and I want to add my voice to those of hon. Members who have already supported the idea of a review, where the death sentence has been imposed. Whether that upsets the Bill or not, I cannot imagine anything of greater importance. A man can be detained. What is the hurry, if a man has committed an offence which, in a moment of crisis, seems to necessitate shooting him or hanging him forthwith? My own view is that this Committee ought to demand an answer. I hope that we shall defeat the Government, unless the Home Secretary is prepared to make this concession in the Bill now, and not by subsequent Regulation, that there shall be a review, should a sentence of death be passed by these courts.

5.38 p.m.

Major Maxwell Fyfe: Having listened with the greatest interest to the different views expressed on this point, I express my own, which is known to certain Members of the Committee. Hon. Members have expressed a preference for another procedure rather than the one put forward in the Bill. In the last speech of the Home Secretary was a proposal which, if examined, will be found to go a great way to meet the fears exprssed in many quarters of the Committee. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) said that he was not convinced by the argument of necessity which had been put forward. I disagree strongly with his view as to the absence of necessity of deterrent and speedy action. In the circumstances in which these courts are suggested, deterrent and speedy action is essential if they are to work at all. Therefore, we have to find a procedure which will not militate against those two requisites. As I understand the Home Secretary, he proposes that, in the case of a death penalty for a serious offence, no action shall be taken to carry out the sentence until he has referred the matter to, and had a report from, an advisory committee, which will consist of legal experts, and that that advisory committee should be able to review not only


the sentences, but the proceedings of the court, and questions of whether the conviction is right or not. If my right hon. Friend is going as far as that, I cannot see the distinction between his proposal and the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that there should be a court of review.

Sir I. Albery: If what my hon. and gallant Friend has now stated as the Home Secretary's argument be, in fact, his argument, and if it means that the body which the right hon. Gentleman might set up would be a confirming body, it would go a long way towards meeting the point.

Hon. Members: He has not said that.

Major Fyfe: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not think that we are catechising him, but perhaps he will indicate whether I am right in describing the suggested body as a committee, to which he would refer these questions and whose report he would receive before action were taken.

Mr. E. Evans: That is very important. The Home Secretary has not said that yet.

Major Fyfe: I hope I am not pressing my right hon. Friend too much, but I ask him whether I have given a correct account of what he said.

Sir J. Anderson: What I said was that I was perfectly prepared to consider making provision in the Regulations for some appropriate and convenient method of reviewing, in connection with the exercise of the Prerogative, matters arising out of the working of the special machinery provided in the Bill. I have not had an opportunity of considering how best it could be arranged, and I do not want to be tied too closely, but I am perfectly prepared to go into that matter in connection with the Regulations. I told the Committee that I had had in mind that, if the pressure of work became such as to necessitate the setting up of a special machine, that would be the kind of machinery I would select. It is not a matter to be provided for in the Bill because, according to my suggestion, it would be bound up with the exercise of the Prerogative. You cannot put into the Bill matters of that kind. I think that would be entirely wrong constitutionally. My right hon. and learned

Friend the Attorney-General may speak in a moment about the establishment of a body of a judicial nature.

Mr. Pritt: Would not the right hon. Gentleman say that to deal with the Prerogative in a Regulation would be, if anything, slightly worse than to deal with it in the Bill?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think it has quite the same consequences. In point of fact, the provisions which are made to ensure that the death sentence shall not be carried out, under the ordinary rules, before review has taken place, are made by rules.

Mr. Pritt: That is a different point. The right hon. Gentleman is proposing to supply by Regulation, someone to carry out the Prerogative.

Sir J. Anderson: No. I hope there is no misunderstanding on that point. The body to be set up will advise the Minister, who has to carry it out.

Major Fyfe: I confess I thought that my right hon. Friend had gone a little further, and that he was not limiting his suggestion to the one matter of Prerogative cases. I thought he proposed to establish some machinery which would examine the more serious cases which came up from the court. I see that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is in his place again, and he might be disposed to agree with me, that, had my right hon. Friend gone as far as having a legally manned committee to which he would refer serious cases, and without whose report he would not act, that would have meant very much the same thing as the hon. Gentleman's own proposal that there should be an ad hoc reviewing body. I was going to point out—and as I understood the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, he was very conscious of the fact—that you would not have a court of appeal acting in the ordinary way, hearing counsel on each side and occupying a considerable time. What I understood was that you would have a reviewing authority which would review the report of the trial.

Mr. Bevan: I do not want the hon. and learned Gentleman to reduce my proposals to too meagre proportions. What I had in mind was an ad hoc legal tribunal which would have power also, if it wished, to send for witnesses and examine the


accused person, but not the ordinary processes of a trial in which there would be a large number of legal representatives on both sides.

Major Fyfe: The point envisaged by the hon. Gentleman might arise in a certain number of cases, but in the ordinary case they would have the proceedings before the tribunal. It would be perfectly clear and they would be perfectly able to act. With regard to that proposal and the general understanding of my right hon. Friend's proposal, there is very little between us indeed. I think that those of us who agree with my right hon. Friend, that it is necessary that these courts should act speedily, that the trials should be carried out quickly, and that the sentences should be a deterrent to the type of crime that may be apprehended in districts where confusion reigns, would be prepared very readily to accept some proposal of that kind—that my right hon. Friend should have a committee to which he could refer the cases and on whose authority he could act. It seems to me that that sort of compromise would satisfy the majority of hon. Members in this Committee.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: The speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman has brought us very much nearer to a point of agreement. I would like to put this to the Home Secretary: in the case of a capital sentence he would, of course, have to recommend the exercise of the Prerogative, but would he be willing, before doing so, to submit the case to a body which would consist of judicial personages? That body would then have the right, if they thought necessary and if the circumstances permitted, of calling the convicted person or taking such other steps as were necessary. On the other hand, in cases where it was clear that they did not think that was necessary they would act upon the depositions of the trial and give their report according to their own responsibility, having taken such evidence as they thought necessary? That would be left to them to decide. That is not very far from what the right hon. Gentleman himself proposed and if he would agree to that I think the matter might be adjusted.

Mr. Bevan: There is a misunderstanding.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Naylor: I do not think the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has been properly understood. I disagree with the hon. and gallant Member opposite when he says that the two proposals now at issue before the Committee are very much the same. It seems to me that they are divided in principle. The Home Secretary's suggestion is connected only with the Royal Prerogative—that is to say, the advisers will have power to advise the Home Secretary, but the Home Secretary will not be bound by any advice that they may give. Therefore, the position would be very much as it is now. The right hon. Gentleman has already told us that when the Home Secretary is called upon to give advice in respect of a sentence, he always has to consult and does consult experts of all kinds in order that he may come to the right decision. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has gone no further than that. What we are proposing is that there should be an ad hoc committee of some kind, which would have the power of taking into account all the evidence submitted in the case in which the penal decision has been given, and power to revise it, independently of the Home Secretary and of any question of the Royal Prerogative. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is very slow in his efforts to meet the objections that have been raised. Unless he wants to face a Division which may, possibly, result in the detriment to his view, I hope he will reconsider the matter. He has made three speeches and it will not make much difference, perhaps, if he makes yet another, before we close the issue. What we want is a secondary body, independent of the Home Secretary and of the Royal Prerogative to say whether or not they confirm the decision which has been given.

5.51 p.m.

Sir A. Southby: May I make a suggestion? It is agreed, I think, on both sides of the Committee that the courts have to act with speed and that an appeal in the ordinary sense is impossible. It is also perfectly clear that the majority of hon. Members present demand, if I may use that word, that there shall be some review. I venture to suggest that some sort of review will have to be put into this Bill or else the Bill will not go very


far. It has been suggested by the Home Secretary—and I must confess that I thought his suggestion went much further than it was afterwards found to go—that he should consult an advisory body, but that is what he does at present. What the Committee desire is something quite apart from the ordinary body which he consults—something independent. I understood that there would be a difficulty in a judge of the High Court having his findings and his sentences reviewed by anybody. The question seems to be one of amour propre, but that seems to be the point. Would the Home Secretary consider that an advisory tribunal should be mentioned in the Bill and not in the Regulations? That is important. Whatever provision is made, it should be in the Bill and not in the Regulations. When it is in the Bill we know what we are doing, but if it is to be in the Regulations we do not know what will happen. I suggest that it should be in the Bill and that any decision should be reviewed by the Lord Chief Justice. There is a high legal authority who would act with impartiality, who is part of the existing legal machinery and whose services might be prayed in aid to get us out of this difficulty.

5.54 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: We desire to have, not a full-blown appeal but a review, not merely on sentence but also on merits, by judicial persons independent of the Executive, and for the life of me I cannot understand why the Home Secretary cannot grant that. I cannot see what he would lose, in substance, by granting it. I am sure he desires unity in the Committee and the Government desires speed, but I do not think the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General will get either of those, unless they show that they understand the very grave fears which sincere and honest citizens of this country and Members of this Committee feel about this Bill. We are not afraid of somebody being imprisoned who ought not to have been imprisoned. That is a small fear. We are not even afraid of somebody being shot or hanged who ought not to have been shot or hanged. In these days a lot of people are being hanged and shot who ought not to be, and one or two more would not be terribly important. There is a much graver fear. We

gravely fear that if the Executive is given excessive powers over the liberties of the subject, the liberties of the particular subject may be detrimentally affected and the very thing for which we are fighting may be destroyed. We have seen that happen in several countries in the last few months, precisely because the Executives had taken to themselves too much power over the liberty of the subject. That is the grave fear which confronts us, and when we find that the Home Secretary is rejecting appeals from all parts of this Committee, on grounds which he does not state, then our fears are not allayed but increased.
I would like to point out—almost every hon. Member is aware of it, but I do not think the Home Secretary is—that throughout this Debate the Home Secretary has not told us what he would lose in substance by granting the overwhelming desire of this Committee. He has told us that it is inconsistent with the spirit of the Bill. He just says so, but he brings no argument. What the Home Secretary requires is provision for arrest, early conviction and early sentence. In the case of death, the Home Secretary does not say that he gains anything by early execution. He does not want it. He merely wants arrest, speedy trial and early sentence. He has not said anything to show this Committee that he will lose any one of those three things if he accedes to the demand which has been expressed upon all sides. When he says, "I will not yield" without giving any reason, that, too, must increase the very sincere fears which a great many of us feel. Unless the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General can tell us what the Government would lose in substance, this Committee should vote against them and try to impress its will on the Executive.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Goldie: I was not here yesterday and therefore I did not hear the discussion on the main part of the Bill. I confess that my mind has fluctuated throughout the whole of the Debate which I have heard this afternoon, and I wish to speak only because I, personally, have had as much experience of court-martial work as any hon. Member on this Committee, excepting the hon. and gallant Member for West Derby (Major Fyfe). My great difficulty is this. First I am not in a position yet to know


by whom the death sentence is to be passed. I know many individuals, if I may say so with respect—High Court judges and others—to whom I would be prepared to entrust my personal safety, but I say without hesitation that I would hesitate very much before I committed myself and my fate to many lay magistrates. It is for that reason mainly that I feel that there should be a confirming authority.
The right hon. Gentleman very properly drew a distinction between martial law and courts-martial. In field courts-martial there must be three members present, and in a district court-martial, if I remember rightly, five members, with at least three voting in favour, for the death penalty to be passed. In that case, there is a confirming authority before the sentence can be carried out. The right hon. Gentleman now says, most properly, that he is prepared to undertake the duties of the confirming authority. The issue, therefore, is narrowed down to this: What is the best way for the confirming authority to operate? Now that the right hon. Gentleman has said that persons tried by these extraordinary tribunals—I use the adjective in no offensive sense—are to have the sentences confirmed by a responsible authority, such as the Home Secretary, my doubts have vanished, and I intend to support the right hon. Gentleman.

6.2 p.m.

The Attorney-General: It is important to emphasise again what my right hon. Friend emphasised, that the whole reason for this Bill is to prevent conditions arising in which what is called martial law would be the only method of dealing with offenders. Once that is realised, I think every hon. Member will appreciate that the need for this machinery to be speedy is very real. Nearly everybody, though perhaps not quite everybody—I do not know about the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan)—agrees with the feeling expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) and the hon. and gallant Member for West Derby (Major Fyfe) that a court of appeal, such as we have had in this country since 1912, in the ordinary legal sense, is out of the question.

Mr. Bevan: I said so myself.

The Attorney-General: Yes, I think that is the general sense of the Committee. The difference, therefore, is a comparatively small, though important, one. The suggestion is that there should be some body, an individual or two judges, who should be not a court of criminal appeal, not an executive or administrative body, but should, if I understand correctly, control the Home Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "No—review the case."] They would not be a court of criminal appeal. It is recognised that we cannot have an ordinary court of appeal. At the moment, I find it difficult to see on what principle this body would be acting.

Mr. Pritt: Every Crown Colony has such a system of review. It is not novel; it is a very well-tried system. I do not like it as well as appeal, but it has decided the fate of hundreds of our black fellow subjects.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman has the advantage of me. It is not, however, a process with which our judges are familiar. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nor is this."] They will be administering the ordinary law. All our judges are used to deciding questions of fact, without a jury, in civil cases.

Mr. E. Evans: We have no assurance that the president of this court will be a High Court judge.

The Attorney-General: As I listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), I thought that he was merely asking for what my right hon. Friend had spoken about. My right hon. Friend said that, in coming to a decision when giving advice to the Crown on the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy, he would refer capital cases and other serious cases to a committee—if that is the right word—of two or three judicial, highly-qualified legal persons to report to him before he came to the decision.

Mr. Bevan: How would that differ from what the right hon. Gentleman says he now does in many cases?

The Attorney-General: I do not think my right hon. Friend said anything of that kind.

Mr. Shinwell: He said that he availed himself of legal advice in such cases.

Mr. Hicks: Will the Attorney-General tell us what the Home


Secretary wanted to convey to us when he said that this was unconstitutional and could not be incorporated in the Bill? What part of the Constitution prevents it from being incorporated in the Bill?

The Attorney-General: I think my right hon. Friend was dealing with the suggestion that there should be placed in the Bill some fetter upon the way in which the Prerogative of the Crown might be exercised. Members, I think, all recognise, although there are some things that they may dislike in the Bill, that this is a genuine attempt to fill a gap which needs to be filled. We never know, from day to day, when conditions may come upon us in which it is vital that the machinery which this Bill provides shall be put into operation. I want to make an appeal to the Committee. I appreciate the desire for some sort of judicial body which would be not merely advisory to my right hon. Friend but would have some function which I think it is rather difficult to determine. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because a review by a judge is something unknown to the law of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "So is this Bill."] What the judges will have to do will be done, not under the Bill, but under the Regulations. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Regulations will be under the Bill."] The matter may be one that can be dealt with by Regulation, but the insertion of such words as hon. Gentlemen have in mind would compel by Statute something which is unknown at present to our law.

Major Milner: Let the reviewing body be set up, either by Regulations or otherwise.

The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend has given an undertaking—which I agree fails to satisfy many Members on both sides of the Committee—as to what he is prepared to do. We are, certainly, prepared to consider whether, within the limits of the necessary expeditious and practical form, there should be some body which would review. My right hon. Friend is prepared to go further, so far as the Bill is concerned. We very much want the Bill to go through to-night. My right hon. Friend will be prepared to consider whether a form of words which would meet the point could be inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Bevan: Is the Attorney-General prepared—I think this is all we want, and it is very reasonable—to give an undertaking that, in another place, there will be inserted in the Bill, a form of words which would provide for a reviewing body of the kind which has been described this evening?

Mr. Lyons: A reviewing body of His Majesty's judges.

Mr. Bevan: A judicial reviewing body of an ad hoc character, exempted from some of the normal processes of appeal.

The Attorney-General: I hope the Committee will appreciate the difficulties.

Mr. Pritt: You have not explained any.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that I have not; he is entitled to his opinion. But I am sure that my hon. and learned Friends here will agree that if you are proposing to impose by Statute on his Majesty's judges a duty unknown previously to our law, it would normally, of course, be a matter for consultation with them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, certainly—before we settled their duties. Therefore, I cannot be absolute in regard to the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman asked for. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] That is as far as I can go. My right hon. Friend's undertaking stands. The undertaking is that we will consider, if necessary, with right hon. and hon. Members, whether it is possible to insert, in another place, words in the Bill which will provide for the kind of reviewing body which has been indicated by many hon. Members in all parts of the Committee.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Lyons: Many of us feel very strongly about this question. My right hon. and learned Friend says that we may have to meet an immediate situation of grave anxiety, and upon that the whole Bill is based. Can he tell the Committee whether, if there is a situation of abnormality, there can be anything better to preserve the liberty and rights of the people than a body composed of His Majesty's judges? If the court itself can function, is there any reason at all why some sort of appeal cannot function immediately? If the court can sit, then the Court of Appeal should be able to sit. If anybody is to be entrusted with the power of preserving the liberty of the people,


that power should be given to His Majesty's judges as a court of appeal.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: The Committee appears to have travelled a very considerable way onwards, and has made great efforts to do so. The undertaking now is, as I understand it, that before the Bill goes to another place there shall be a discussion as to the possibility of inserting in the Bill language to give effect to the desire of the Committee that there shall be set up a reviewing judicial body for the cases set out in the Bill. There can be no doubt of the possibility of it, and we gather that the right hon. Gentleman would never try to conceal himself behind these words. In these circumstances I see no reason at all why the Committee should not agree.

The Attorney-General: There is not any misunderstanding. The hon. Gentleman's body is a body which would deal with death sentences, which, broadly speaking, was the limit of the earlier part of our discussion.

6.18 p.m.

Sir A. Southby: On the Amendment which says that certain words are to be left out, I would suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that, in view of his undertaking, it seems obvious to an hon. and unlearned Member of this House that he must accept the Amendment, because now the Government are going to take steps to have some form of review. Therefore, it is obvious, if they are to carry that out, that they can accept the words of the Amendment, as it is clear that there will be some such review as that which is set out.

Mr. Harvey: Will the Government consider accepting provisionally the words of the Amendment, which will leave the door open to carry out the agreement?

6.19 p.m.

The Attorney-General: The proposal that was made was not intended to cover all cases. In the early part of the Debate anxiety arose in the mind of everybody with regard to death penalty cases. If my right hon. Friend's Amendment was accepted—review by a court—it would be merely an enabling power, and there is nothing inconsistent in the Bill as it stands, amended by my right hon. Friend with the body proposed, and I think it would be better if his Amendment were carried. The way would then be open for the whole thing.

Sir A. Southby: I am sorry to press this matter. Surely if the words are left in the Bill as it stands, it will say:
The proceedings of such courts being subject to no review.
The undertaking is that some form of review should be undertaken. Why not take out the words?

Colonel Gretton: The words can be left in if you add "notwithstanding anything heretofore." A review would be set up to deal with specified cases, and I do not think that the Committee need contest the point of this Amendment provided the undertaking is carried out.

Mr. Lees-Smith: We are not quite clear. Will the Attorney-General tell the Committee whether he is accepting the Amendment or not?

The Attorney-General: I think that it is better not to accept it.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Will the Attorney-General explain why?

The Attorney-General: We have to consider the undertaking.

Mr. Bevan: That is rather unreasonable, surely.

The Attorney-General: I do not take it that this reviewing body—which I certainly understood from the earlier speeches was wanted for death penalty cases—

Hon. Members: And serious cases.

The Attorney-General: We can discuss how we may define it. I do not take it that this reviewing body was intended to operate necessarily over the whole field. I have suggested to the Committee that, if these words become unnecessary or inapt as a result of the alteration made, they can go, but that they do not necessarily have to go. As I understand the situation, there might be minor matters which would not come under the proposal for the reviewing body. I do not know that it very much matters, because obviously the wording will have to be considered in the light of the Amendment to be proposed. I was asked by my hon. and gallant Friend whether it was not obvious, in view of the suggestion that has been made, that these words will have to go.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. E. Evans: Why is it that the Government are making so much heavy weather for themselves? It is simple to accept the Amendment. If in the light of any further Amendments that the Government wish to introduce these words may have to be reinserted, they can do it. Why create all this suspicion? The feeling of the Committee is obvious to everybody except apparently—and I am sorry to say this—to the two right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench. There is very strong feeling about this and why make heavy weather for yourselves? Why not accept the Amendment, and, if it is inappropriate afterwards, you can reinsert the words?

The Attorney-General: There is always difficulty in controversy between people on opposite sides to be quite certain who are making the heavy weather.

Mr. Pritt: There is not much doubt about it.

The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend is prepared to accept this Amendment. I think I have some reason for the attitude I adopted, because it may have been that the acceptance of this Amendment might have been taken as an indication, in the opinion of the Government and this Committee, that the review ought to operate in every case. As long as it is clear that that was not the demand that was made, and that there is nothing inconsistent with our considering that question, then I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I ask you, Colonel Clifton Brown, what effect the deletion of these words makes on my Amendment, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no death sentence pronounced by any court established under this Act shall become operative unless and until the same shall be confirmed by a judge of His Majesty's Supreme Court of Judicature after a full review of the proceedings held in the presence of the accused who shall be entitled to give and to call evidence in his own behalf."?

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): After the long discussion, I have decided that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is not now selected.

Mr. Hall: I purposely did not speak during the discussion, because I thought

that the previous Amendment did not entirely cover the point of my Amendment. It raises certain issues which, in my submission, were not covered by the previous Amendment.

The Deputy-Chairman: We have discussed this matter for nearly three hours, and I am afraid that the Amendment of the hon. Member is not selected.

Sir A. Southby: On a point of Order. I presume that the three Amendments in my name—in page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the Regulations shall provide that the presidents of such courts are responsible to the Commons House of Parliament.
Provided that the Regulations shall provide that the salaries of the presidents of such courts shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
Provided that in view of the special nature of these courts and so long as they remain in operation it shall be competent for Parliament to discuss their working and the sentences passed by them"—
are not going to be called? As they seek to raise the point of this House keeping some control over the process of these courts, would it be in order to raise that point on the Motion "That the Clause stand part" in the event of these Amendments not being called?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is difficult to say in advance what will be in order and what will not on the Motion "That the Clause stand part." Hon. Members must always try to decide for themselves. They will be pulled up if they are out of order. The second Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member is out of order, as it raises the question of money.

6.29 p.m.

Sir R. Acland: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no regulation may make provision for the holding of any trial in secret when such trial could not have been held in secret under the rules and practices of the regular civil courts.
I hope that we may be able to deal with this Amendment in the same way. There appear to be only two possibilities. There is a whole series of rules, practices and customs known to our judges and to barristers; and others under which, in certain circumstances, a trial may be held in secret. One gathers that these special courts are to be presided over by judges or by learned gentlemen


of the calibre of High Court judges to whom therefore the ordinary rules governing the holding of trials in secret will be well known, I have complete confidence in those learned gentlemen who administer and interpret those rules correctly.
There are, therefore, only two possibilities; either the Government have in mind that in certain circumstances they will desire the special courts to sit in secret in circumstances in which they would not now sit in secret, or they would not. If the Government have in their mind that they will use these Regulations in order to enable these courts to sit in secret and hear trials for which in the ordinary way there would be no call for secrecy, then I think we ought to get the Government to say that that is their intention, and the Committee should defeat it, because I am sure the Committee would not desire to give the Government in this Bill anything which would enable them to hold trials in secret when they could not do so under the ordinary rules. I hope the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General will be able to tell us that the Government are not minded to use the powers in this Bill in order to extend the powers in the special courts to sit in secret. If they can tell us that, then there is only one thing left, namely, whether we should be content with an assurance from that Box or whether the provision should be in the Bill. I submit that it would be an advantage to have this in the Bill. I have explained on earlier Amendments what are the fears of a number of Members of this House and citizens outside as to how this Bill may be used by this or any other Executive at a moment of crisis, and I think it would go some way to removing those fears if it appeared in the Bill that there was no power to extend sittings in secret.

6.33 p.m.

The Attorney-General: Subject to the rare cases in which, under existing law, trials are held in secret, so far from there being any desire that these courts should sit in secret, there is the desire that all proceedings should have the fullest possible publicity. That is one of the objects of setting up these courts, and the only question is whether we can or cannot insert a proviso. I think it would be better, for the following reasons, if we did not: When the original Defence Act was before the House we took the view

that the holding of trials in public was so fundamentally a matter of the British Constitution that it could not be interfered with by Regulations made in general words, and for that reason the hon. Baronet will find, if he looks at Section 6 of the Act of 1939, that in so far as there was, as there was, some extension of the power to hear cases in camera, it was thought right to make it in that Act and not leave it to be dealt with by Regulation. That provision of the original Emergency Defence Act which gives a court power to hear cases in camera if it is expedient in the interest of public safety or the Defence of the Realm, will, of course, apply to these courts as to other courts, as it will, also, to the Common Law power to hear in camera. To insert this proviso would suggest that we could extend the right to hear cases in camera by Regulation, and that is exactly what we do not think we can do. The insertion of the proviso would, by implication, suggest it could be done by Regulation, and I therefore hope the hon. Baronet will not press the Amendment.

Sir R. Acland: I think the explanation is perfectly satisfactory, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, to leave out from the first "and," to "are," in line 25.
This Amendment is consequential on the first Amendment passed yesterday.

Amendment agreed to.

6.37 p.m.

Colonel Gretton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, at the end, to add:
(3) Courts under this Act not being courts-martial shall consist of not less than a president and two other persons learned in the law and legal procedure.
I am moving only the first part of the Amendment which stands in my name, and not the second part. The Committee will see that the first part deals with the constitution of these new courts and who would be the judges. The second part of the Amendment provides for revising and confirming authority, but in view of the long discussion we have just had, I do not think it is necessary to move the second part of the Amendment. Therefore, I will confine myself to the constitution of the courts and would only say that the second part of the Amend-


ment appears to provide what the Committee, after long Debate, decided that it wanted. In connection with the part of my Amendment which I am moving I wish to say that no precise information has been given to us yet by the Government as to who these persons are intended to be and who will act as judges of these new courts. There was an alarming passage in the first Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill which led some of us to believe that it was intended that any suitable barrister or other person learned in the law, but not necessarily trained in a judicial capacity, might act as president, with two legal gentlemen, justices of the peace, or, maybe, local solicitors, appointed to act with the president.
I think it has been said more than once in the course of this Debate that it is intended that the president shall be the judge to decide, that the other two gentlemen, sitting with him, shall be in the nature and character of assessors, and that beyond an expression of their views and discussion of the character of the case with the president they will have no more to do with the decision. That has alarmed some of us, because it seems quite clear that the president of these courts should be a highly qualified person. Because of the far-reaching, wide and drastic nature of the Bill, it would be very alarming if one man, who might come to the point of imposing a sentence of death, and who might be learned in the law and legal procedure, but was by no means learned in judicial capacity, should have these enormous powers. I therefore move this Amendment in order to obtain something more precise than anything which has occurred hitherto and to show who these persons are to be. The Government may be able to improve on my words, but I think it is essential that something should be put into the Bill to ensure that the man appointed as president, and those appointed as his associates, are persons of the highest qualifications.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: This Amendment falls into two parts, and so far as the latter part is concerned, I understood that we had an undertaking from the Attorney-General—

Colonel Gretton: I have not moved the second part.

Mr. Shinwell: As regards the first part, then, I wish to make one or two observations on the subject of the personnel of these courts. There was a suggestion that these civil courts should consist of a president with legal knowledge, assisted, possibly, by two justices of the peace. I dislike that course intensely. I make no charge against justices of the peace—no doubt many of them are admirable—but there are some in certain areas who are obviously biased from the legal standpoint, and I would not like to place them in the position of having to adjudicate on matters which come before them, certainly on matters of this kind. If it were intended that justices of the peace in particular areas should not adjudicate on the cases coming before them from their particular districts, but should go elsewhere, I should not mind the proposal, but if they are to adjudicate in their own areas, it is a matter which ought to be carefully considered. However, my submission to the right hon. Gentleman is that he should accept the principle of this Amendment if he cannot accept the words. If the process of trial is to be speedy, it does seem to me that decisions ought not to be left in the hands of one man, however capable. He ought to be assisted by other persons who have legal knowledge and who are able to form an opinion on the evidence presented. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will appoint, not one person, but three persons, and in that way give rather more confidence to those concerned with this matter than otherwise would be the case. We had an opportunity of presenting our views to the right hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion, and he is well acquainted with our opinions, but I make these observations in order to reinforce them.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Goldie: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not at all happy about lay justices taking their part in the administration of this court. I go further and ask whether it would not be possible to have what I believe there is at the Central Criminal Court, a judges list, and only in cases where the death penalty is to be inflicted one of His Majesty's judges shall be asked to go at once. No greater responsibility could be imposed on any man than to try a life or death issue. There is another point on which I should like to put forward a suggestion. As I understand it, the essence of the Bill is


to cut out all unnecessary procedure and get on with it as quickly and as efficiently as you can. You have already in this country an organisation which can be brought into operation at a moment's notice. It came out in Debate on one occasion that there is only one quarter sessions in the country where there is not a trained lawyer as chairman. You have men like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Major Maxwell Fyfe), who is a recorder, and there is the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons). There are men who are perfectly prepared to go down at a moment's notice to the areas in which they have judicial functions and, much as they dislike the work, do it simply as part of their duty. I cannot help thinking that, provided you get safeguards, and you have not one man alone but three people learned in the law, one of whom, the president, has had real judicial experience in presiding over criminal courts, that will prove much more satisfactory than what is at present suggested, namely, only one trained lawyer who may have been at the bar for a couple of years, has never practised and has had no judicial experience at all. As far as the death penalty is concerned, it is a matter which might well be left to His Majesty's judges.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I strongly support the Mover of the Amendment, especially as I gather that these courts are to consist of three people, one of whom is going to be a man learned in the law and the other two will possibly be taken from a panel and will be something in the nature of assessors and may be local justices of the peace. I can understand having one judge of the High Court trying a case. I can understand our laying it down that there shall be three judges, especially if the case is a criminal one of a serious kind. What I cannot for the life of me understand is why the Home Secretary should think it wise to put into the Regulations that you should have a High Court judge sitting in one of these courts as president, and two others—I use the word in its proper sense and not as a term of reproach—local nonentities sitting with him. It is obvious that those two will be overawed by the judge, and the only possible help that they could be to him—possibly this

is the reason why they are being added—is that they would be able to give him, to use a vulgarism, the "low down" on the individual who comes before the court. There is no other reason for their being there. They are not learned in the law, and, as far as legal procedure is concerned they will be completely useless, and it seems to me they can only be there to give him local colour about the individual who may come before the court. There will be a genuine fear in the localities where these courts are set up that these men are actually there to tell the judge what is known locally about the tendencies and the political views of those who may come before the court. If we must have three, let them be learned in the law and not be assessors, local men who can give no help whatever and can only give the "low down" on the individual who is up for trial.

6.50 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will not press the Amendment. It would be better to leave it at large. There are two different conceptions, and they both ought to remain open for consideration. The conception behind the Amendment is in effect one of three judicial or legal personages, the president, no doubt one of the greatest status, possibly a High Court judge, sitting with recorders and so on—three judges to deal with capital cases without a jury. That is one conception, and it may he the one finally thought to be the best. It involves a greater demand on such judicial legal talent as there is. The other conception is a different one. There is not the slightest idea in anyone's mind that the lay members of the court, whether justices or not, should give the judge the "low down" on the individual. [Interruption.] I was putting the hon. Member's point in his own words. In these courts there will be no juries. The hon. Member referred to these men as unlearned in the law and as nonentities. I wonder whether he would refer to 12 jurymen as 12 nonentities?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I used the word and qualified it by saying I used it in no derogatory sense.

The Attorney-General: That is a principle which I will remember. In our criminal system as it is, the opinion of


laymen unlearned in the law is the opinion which decides the most serious issue, namely, guilt or non-guilt. I have had an opportunity of discussing these special courts with one or two of His Majesty's judges who may have to be called upon to preside over them, anyhow judges who are familiar with the problems which this procedure would present. One or two of them were certainly attracted by the idea of being assisted, not so much on the legal side, but by two responsible laymen, who would not, of course, perform the functions of a jury but who would, as it were, express the point of view and look at matters in the way that a jury would. I will certainly consider my right hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, but I would ask him not to press the Amendment, because there really are two sides to this matter, and it would be much better if it was left open. My right hon. Friend is, of course, keeping in touch with those interested and will also take an opportunity of discussing the matter with His Majesty's judges who may be called upon to preside.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Logan: I do not look upon justices as being nonentities. I understand that it is quite possible that cases may have to be heard in camera. The composition of the court then would resolve itself into those who would be entitled to be present. Therefore, not having anyone from the locality present, it is probable that the judicial body could control the whole of the proceedings, and it would convey a wrong impression to people outside. I daresay local opinion might at some time create a difficulty in regard to a particular case, but surely it would be quite possible to get people to sit with the judge, not having any power over him, because I do not think, from my knowledge of the judges who come to the Liverpool Assizes, anyone, whether a nonentity or not, would be able to influence any judge that I have ever seen in an English court of justice. These two people, whether learned in the law or not, would have no influence and no power over the judge, and, therefore, if they are nonentities in the form of justices of the peace, it will not make any difference, but it will have a great deal to do with the question of the constitution

of the court if the legal mind of a judge is dealing with the case. The Amendment ought to be seriously considered before it is accepted. There are good men—they may not be in the House of Commons—who could be got who would not attempt to influence the judge on the bench.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Goldie: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us whether, in cases other than death sentences, the second and third members of the court, who, I assume, are really something in the nature of assessors, will have any say with regard to the sentence, or is that a matter to be left entirely to the presiding judge? Would the judge be justified in consulting with the assessors as to whether he should pass sentence of 10 years' penal servitude or two years' hard labour, or is the function of the assessors simply to give general advice on the details of the case?

The Attorney-General: The judge would consult them, both on conviction and on sentence, but after the consultation the responsibility would be his. The idea of the Amendment on the Paper is that there should be a court of three who would all bear the same responsibility.

7.0 p.m.

Sir A. Southby: I think we again find ourselves in difficulty because of the fact that we are really discussing the Bill in the dark. Things are not in the Bill; they are to be in the Regulations, or not, as the case may be. We do not know really what is to be the constitution of these courts. We are told that they are to be composed of prominent people learned in the law, and that if the supply goes round, they are to be High Court judges. I have the greatest respect for the capability and efficiency of High Court judges, but I hope the Attorney-General will stick to the appointment of two laymen. I believe these laymen might be of the greatest possible assistance to the judge, and, much more than that, they might give great confidence and comfort to the man in the dock. Hon. Members have been speaking from the point of view of the men on the bench; I am trying to put the point of view of the man in the dock, who appears before a new and quite unknown court. I do not know how magistrates living in the Colne Valley will like the suggestion of the hon.


Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) that they are nonentities. My experience of magistrates of all shades of political opinion is that they do their work extremely well. I believe that the confidence of the public in these courts will be greatly strengthned if they see sitting on the bench with the judge—whether one or two is a matter for further discussion—two ordinary men from the street, as it were, and I hope that when the Home Secretary has discussed this matter further, he will maintain the original provision that two lay magistrates from the panel of the county or area shall sit with the judge, because it is most important that their services should be retained.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Hicks: I endorse very largely the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) about the constitution of these courts. As a trade unionist I ought not to object to trade union organisation, but, candidly, there are some of us who are not as much enamoured of lawyers as they are themselves. On nearly every occasion when there is anything before the Committee, there is an urgent desire to urge the importance and extension of lawyers in all this business. I do not agree that they are necessarily the best persons to give decisions. I would prefer to see two laymen sitting with the learned judge. There must be someone to deal with the points of law, but we want a little common sense in the decisions as well. The Attorney-General referred to the fact that a jury is not necessarily trained in the law, but the juries give excellent decisions, and they give confidence to the country. I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider whether it is not possible for him to agree to have two laymen to assist the judge in coming to a decision. If he has any difficulty, apart from the lawyers who are in the Committee and who hope to be able to get higher positions in the law—and we wish them the best of luck—if he has any difficulty in getting a decent panel, I can get him a first-class panel from the Trades Union Congress.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. A. Jenkins: I should like to add a word or two in regard to the proposal made by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) and my hon. Friend the Member for East

Woolwich (Mr. Hicks). I hope the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General will be rather careful about the appointment of the additional people to these courts. There might be real danger in having courts composed only of legal people. These people are all very well in their particular sphere, but I doubt very much whether the courts will have to deal only with legal matters. Very often they will have to deal with human nature, which is very much wider than the legal aspects of the case under consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) said that justices of the peace are nonentities. I think he made a mistake. I know justices of the peace who devote an enormous amount of time, energy and care to carrying out their work. Of course, some of them are nonentities and worthless, but under the system now in operation, the advisory committees play an active part in advising the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor on the appointment of magistrates, and on the whole the system works fairly well. The courts that are to be constituted by this Bill ought to have some laymen on them. There ought to be an opportunity for laymen to express an opinion on the cases that will come before these courts. I hope the Committee will not agree to the constitution of purely legal courts, because I think that would be a mistake.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Levy: I wish to put a question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Having regard to the fact that there will be two laymen or justices of the peace on these courts, will the presidents be High Court judges? If a court is to have three members, two of whom are to be laymen, I feel it is essential that the president should be a High Court judge.

Colonel Gretton: The question as to who are to be the presidents of these new courts is a very important one. I do not wish to press the Amendment if the Home Secretary will give an assurance that it is intended that High Court judges shall be appointed as presidents of the courts. That has been assumed several times in the Debates yesterday and to-day, and if my right hon. Friend will confirm that it is so, I shall be prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

7.8 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I think we have said again and again that every effort will be made to secure as presidents of these courts High Court judges or equally qualified gentlemen of the highest standing. It may be that one or two gentlemen such as would be chosen to act as Commissioners of Assize in the place of a High Court judge might be thought suitable to discharge these functions. We are most anxious that the legal character and quality of these courts shall be as high as it possibly can be.

Colonel Gretton: Having received that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, at the end, to add:
(3) Courts under this Act shall be deemed to be inferior courts in relation to the High Court of Justice, and proceedings in the nature of prohibition, certiorari or mandamus shall lie to them accordingly.
It was thought very necessary that this Amendment should be moved—and I hope accepted—by reason of the very alarming speech made by the Attorney-General at an earlier stage in the Debate. I describe it as alarming for this reason. The Bill is recognised by every hon. Member in the Committee to be an unwelcome thing which would be completely undesirable in all ordinary circumstances. The justification for the Bill is that there may be at certain times and in certain parts of the country conditions so exceptional as to make it impossible to apply the ordinary law. Every hon. Member accepts the Bill on that basis. However, during the discussion of a previous Amendment, the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) asked the Attorney-General what there would be to prevent one of these special courts setting itself up in a place which was not authorised by an Order made under the Bill, when it becomes an Act. What is there to prevent one of these special courts, having been set up by Order in a special area to which this Measure has been made, by Regulation, to apply, setting itself up in some other district, and trying in that district offences which it had no jurisdiction to try at all?
The learned Attorney-General said that he contemplated that these courts would

be courts of equal jurisdiction with the High Court. Therefore, they would not be inferior courts, and the normal machinery, which in this country prevents any court from exercising a jurisdiction which it has not got, namely, an appeal by way of prohibition to the High Court, would not apply. If that is so, even such safeguards as the Bill provides have become entirely and completely meaningless. I hope the Attorney-General may be able to remove these serious doubts which are in the minds of several hon. Members. Unless he does so, as far as I can see, once a court is set up, and once it is agreed that it is not an inferior court, and once it is agreed that its proceedings may not therefore be removed to the High Court, it may operate anywhere. If that is so, it becomes vitally necessary that there should be some means of ensuring that a court, once set up, shall confine its jurisdiction to the places and to the time in which jurisdiction has been extended to it. Unless that is the case the first part of the Clause, which defines so clearly the circumstances in which this legislation shall operate, becomes ineffective.
People often have something to say in this Committee about law and lawyers, but I do not wish to enter into a discussion about that. The Common Law of this country, amended as it has been from time to time by legislation, has been generally accepted to enshrine the common sense of the people. And much as we may like to laugh at our courts and our legal system, as we often do in the case of a great many of our institutions, let us not forget that our legal system and our Common Law are infinitely preferable to anything we now see in Europe or outside Europe. No legal Member of this Committee has any need to offer any apology for seeing to it that the principles of our Common Law, which are the principles of our civilisation, are not wildly thrown away, or that if they have to be departed from temporarily in time of emergency, those departures shall be limited and regulated, and people shall not be allowed to go beyond the limits which the House of Commons has imposed.

7.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment and that the hon. Member for Nelson and


Colne (Mr. Silverman) will not press it. I am bound to say that I think this question was largely covered by our earlier discussion and the undertaking which has been given. In any event the certiorari applies only in very special cases, but what the Committee is interested in is to see that where there have been doubtful convictions or excessive sentences there is some review. In the vast bulk of cases certiorari would not come into the picture. I would suggest that the case that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne put is such an improbable one that it is not necessary to provide for it, even if any danger might result from its happening. He said that a court might set itself up in any part of the country. Well, I suppose that is true, and that any judge who is sent on circuit might set himself up at Land's End or anywhere else in the country. It is a theoretical possibility that His Majesty's judges might set themselves up in this way, but the answer is that the proceedings would be nullified. I think it is a very unreal danger. The fact that these courts have complete jurisdiction and are presided over by a judge is a complete answer. You cannot say to a High Court judge, "If you are to do this duty, you are to be treated as an inferior court."

7.18 p.m.

Mr. E. Evans: The Attorney-General has, I think, given us only a partial answer. He said that you cannot tell a judge of the High Court that his court must be considered as an inferior court. But what is there in this Bill which ensures that? As far as I can see, there is no assurance in this Bill that the president of one of these courts shall be a High Court judge. He may be a county court judge, or a lawyer with as much experience and qualification as a judge of the High Court. Therefore, it is not the answer to this Amendment, although it may be a good answer to say that you cannot tell a High Court judge that he will be subject to review. But a High Court judge is already subject to review in many respects.
I cannot understand the mentality of the Government. It seems to me that they are asking for so much trouble, and trouble which they need not incur. What we are trying to ensure is that the old rights of the civil person by way of

certiorari, or whatever you may like to call it, shall not be taken away. It is no answer to say that the president of the court shall be a High Court judge and that you will insult him by saying the position ought to be reviewed by someone else. Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think a little more about it and give the Committee satisfaction that no technicality will be used for the purpose of depriving persons who may be brought before one of these courts of a right which he might otherwise have?

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I would like to ask the Attorney-General a question, not by way of argument, but because I do not know the answer, and I think the answer may shorten the discussion. If I got the words of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) aright, they are:
Courts under this Act shall be deemed to be inferior courts in relation to the High Court of Justice.
Would these words really mean anything in a declaratory Act? Would they in fact bind the courts to take that view? The word "shall" seems on the face of it, to a layman, not entirely appropriate in something which is a mere declaration, and it seems to me that if we could have an authoritative answer, it might dispose of the Amendment altogether. I would beg the Attorney-General not to argue with us on the basis of what is unimaginable as a fact. The whole excuse for this unimaginable Bill is that some almost unimaginable circumstances might arise to which the Common Law could not be made to apply. There would be nothing whatever to be said for this Bill if we were not living in almost unimaginable times in which it is possible to think of persons being kidnapped from one county to another and of all sorts of other things which are not in the imagination of the Attorney-General or other respectable persons in civilised countries.

7.22 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I have not the manuscript of the Amendment in front of me, but I dealt with what I assumed the hon. Gentleman wanted on its merits, irrespective of whether technically the words would bring about that result. My hon. Friend may be right in suggesting that the Amendment would not make any


difference. I thought that the hon. Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. Silverman) wanted the matter dealt with on its merits, and if the Amendment is rejected, the fact that it was not in the right form does not matter.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: This is a far more important question than the Attorney-General has realised, but I do not want to press the matter at this time, because I do not think the opportunity has been taken to consider what the implications of it are. If it be true, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), that in a declaratory Act we cannot make certain that the court would take the view which the Amendment sets out, I suppose it follows that we cannot say, as the Attorney-General said so enigmatically, that the courts would not be held by the High Court to be inferior in the sense that one would like the Amendment to make them inferior. It is true that it is almost impossible to conceive that the president of one of these special courts could do anything so extravagant as I described in my speech and set up his special court anywhere. It is not, however, so inconceivable that in times of excitement and disturbance such as are contemplated he might go first a little outside the limits of his area, and then a little more outside them, and then, under the stress of disturbance, commit some other excess of jurisdiction. I do not think it can be lightly assumed that in circumstances of that kind no court will ever exceed the powers which the House has given it and which the Home Secretary has given it by Regulations. I appeal to the Attorney-General to consider this question again before the later stages and to see whether he cannot devise some safeguard against the abuse of these very wide powers. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

7.25 p.m.

Sir A. Southby: I had an Amendment down which was designed to bring a certain point forward. This Motion is the

only chance the Committee will have of expressing any view on the Bill. It seeks to set up special courts hitherto unknown to this country, and in time of unprecedented difficulty to deal with certain unpredictable events. It may be that these courts should be set up, but I would have preferred a simpler system of giving courts-martial power to try civil cases. If that system had been adopted, most of the discussion we have had to-day would not have taken place. Parliament should be able to keep some form of control over these courts. It may be right in normal circumstances that Parliament should not be able to discuss what is done in the law courts. That is generally accepted as a wise provision, but these courts will be different from the ordinary law courts, and Parliament ought to keep some control over what they do. I do not suggest that they should interfere with the sentences, because now that the Home Secretary has promised a revising body many of our doubts and difficulties have gone. I would like to have an assurance, however, that in some way the House of Commons shall be able to discuss what these courts have done during a time of emergency, and if they have transgressed, the House should be able to bring the offenders to book.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Resolution by Commons may declare special courts no longer required.)

At any time after the making of an order under this Act, the Commons House of Parliament may by resolution declare, either in reference to the whole or to part of the area to which that order applies, that the military situation is no longer such as to require the institution of special courts, and the order shall thereupon cease to apply to the whole or to the part of that area.—[Sir R. Acland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.27 p.m.

Sir R. Acland: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is designed to save the Government from trouble and to a certain extent to meet the point of the hon.


and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby). My desire, like his, is that the House should have some control over the operation of the Measure. I do not go so far as he did, for I do not want the right to review the work of the courts. I am asking that the House should have the right to bring the operation of the courts to an end when the House thinks fit. The Home Secretary may say that we have that right in any case because we could ask him a question why he was continuing the courts in some area, and we could raise the matter on the Adjournment. We could then vote against him, and I am not sure that he would not have to resign if we carried it, which would be regrettable. We could also propose a vote of no confidence in the Government because they were continuing these courts, and if we carried it, the whole Government would have to resign, and that would be a disaster.
My new Clause seeks to introduce a simple House of Commons procedure by which hon. Members may put down a Motion. If a sufficient number put their names to it, it would, no doubt, be discussed. If only one or two put their names to it, no time would be given for a discussion. If the Motion is discussed the Home Secretary will state his reasons why the operation of the courts should not come to an end, and we can consider them and judge, and if the Motion is passed, then it will come to an end, and the Home Secretary continues as Home Secretary and the Government continues as a Government. This seems to be the smoothest procedure by which the House can take into its hands what it should have in its hands, the power to say that the situation is such that we can go back to ordinary methods. It is an easy thing to start the operation of these special courts but a very difficult one to bring them to an end, and I think my proposal provides the easiest and smoothest way of doing it.

7.31 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I do not propose for one moment to challenge the main contention of the hon. Baronet that the House of Commons should have the right to declare its opinion that in any particular war zone in which special courts may have been set up those special courts should cease to function, or that the House, having so declared its opinion,

should not be in a position to ensure that that judgment should be effective. My criticism of this proposed Clause is that, as far as I can see, it would not really achieve anything. There is nothing in the Clause to prevent the executive authorities, immediately after such a resolution had been passed, making a new declaration for the establishment of war courts in the area. That would sound a very unreasonable and outrageous thing to do, but it might happen that after the special courts had been brought to an end in that particular war zone new conditions might arise and there might be justification for re-establishing them. I suggest that this is a matter which the House of Commons really has under its control. There are many methods by which the House of Commons, assuming it is functioning more or less normally could, if it considered that the Executive had done or were acquiescing in something which was improper or undesirable, call the Minister to account. I am conscious of numerous ways in which that could be done, and I hardly think it is paying a compliment to the House of Commons to suggest that a special provision of this kind is needed to enable it to make its will effective and to assert its control over the executive Government.

Sir R. Acland: I, personally, think the Home Secretary is wrong, but I do not propose to press the matter, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving for rights of the Crown.)

The powers conferred by or under this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the powers exercisable by virtue of the Prerogative of the Crown or the common law rights of the Crown and its servants in the case of invasion.—[Major Fyfe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.34 p.m.

Major Fyfe: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause has as its purpose the maintenance of the powers of establishing martial law should the necessity arise, and the clarifying of the position so that this Bill does not impair those powers in any way. There is no real divergence of opinion upon this point, because the


learned Attorney-General said in his speech on Second Reading, in explaining what martial law is:
They have the fullest power under the law to take all measures necessary for that purpose, and nothing in this Bill or in any Regulations that will be made under it will limit the common law power, based on military needs and necessities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1940; col. 138, Vol. 363.]
In my opinion, it is important that that expression of opinion should be given statutory form. It may well be, especially after the discussion which has been so necessary upon many aspects of this Bill, that the military commander, on whom alone the responsibility lies of having to establish martial law in a case of invasion, will be rather bewildered and bemused by the effect of this legislation and the suggested effects which have emerged from the discussion. Therefore, when we are putting a potentially heavy responsibility on the military commander, I think we ought to clear the path for him. My right hon. and learned Friend may have some objection to the Clause from the technical aspect, but I would remind him that we are now dealing with a Bill declaratory of the powers of the original Act. In the original Act, in Clause 9, there are the first lines of my suggested Clause. Therefore, it was deemed necessary when the original Act was passed to preserve these Prerogative or Common Law rights which my right hon. and learned Friend admits and has declared to exist. I have added these words:
or the common law rights of the Crown and its servants in the case of invasion,
because my right hon. Friend referred to them as Common Law rights, not as Prerogative rights, and in doing so was following very high legal authority, as he and I are well aware. That is the technical position, and I do not think it presents any difficulty at all; but the important point is that Members in every part of the Committee have expressed the view that they do not want to handicap in any way the military commander in doing his job in the forward areas, and after the confusion which reigned here a little time ago on the provisions of this Bill I am sure it is most comprehensible to the Committee that that confusion might be shared by military commanders outside. I therefore ask my right hon. Friends for once to relax that adamant and stone-walling attitude that we have

seen for so many hours and to let this most innocuous Clause form part of the Measure.

7.38 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I attach so much importance to the principle of what are called Common Law rights of military authorities and, indeed, of all members of the population, that I should deplore the insertion of this new Clause. Its insertion would clearly suggest that without the insertion of some words of this kind the Common Law rights might have been affected.

Major Fyfe: It is a declaratory Bill.

The Attorney-General: The Common Law rights which apply to the servants of the Crown and, as my hon. Friend knows, apply to all members of the population, are the right to repel force by force and the right to take such measures to meet invasion or attack as military necessity dictates. That is an absolutely overriding power, not only a power, but a duty, and it is fantastic to suggest that this or any other Act of Parliament could derogate from that primary right and duty based upon necessity.

Colonel Arthur Evans: If in those circumstances the competent military authority makes a mistake, is he liable to be proceeded against subsequently by the persons concerned?

The Attorney-General: That point is a little outside the matter of the Clause, but if in the exercise of Common Law rights he does what would otherwise be a wrong, whether it is interference with life, limb or property, he can be called upon, after the military proceedings are over and subject to an Indemnity Act, to justify his action and justify the military necessity in the ordinary courts. The question may be asked: Why, if you think it is undesirable to insert words which suggest that this overriding power might be cut down, do you refer in the original Act to the Prerogative power? That, I think I can explain. The original Emergency Powers Act enabled Orders-in-Council to be made over the whole field, provided that they were for purposes set out, the efficient prosecution of the war, the Defence of the Realm, the maintenance of essential services and so on. It might well have been suggested that a statutory power to issue Orders-in-Council auto-


matically restricted the Prerogative power to make Orders-in-Council in the same field, and it was therefore thought right to insert those safeguarding words. I do not think it is possible to suggest that the Common Law power, or duty, to resist invasion, based as it is on military necessity and the necessity of the country's need at the moment, could be derogated from by any Act of Parliament, whether declaratory or not. To myself, it is vital that that principle should be preserved, and that we should not insert anything in any Bill which might create doubt about it.
I invite hon. Members to look at these words and imagine that they are in the Act. Anybody reading the Act would say that Parliament must have thought that, but for those words, it might have been suggested that the setting up of these courts was in derogation of the powers of the Common Law relating to invasion and that, therefore, Parliament had recognised the possibility of a Statute making provision of this kind, derogating by implication from those powers. That would be a most vicious implication. I believe it is quite unnecessary, and would do something to produce a situation which my hon. and learned Friend does not want in the least, which would suggest that other Statutes in which these words had not been placed, their provisions would on this interpretation, derogate from the military power under Common Law.
Let me give an example. There is power under the Defence Regulations for the military to go on land and do certain acts. Broadly speaking, they can, under the Defence Regulations, go on land and do certain acts, and that power may be exercised in the absence of military necessity. If military necessity arises, you might be able to operate under that power, and you would not have to rely on the Common Law power of necessity. Circumstances might arise in which you had to enter on the land and do an act in times of military necessity, quite apart from any formality or procedure laid down by that Regulation. It is unnecessary to have words like these to say that the powers conferred by the Regulations were not in derogation of Common Law powers. The Committee should resist the putting in of words suggesting that a statutory power of that kind can cut down the Common Law power based on necessity. I hope very much that I have

convinced my hon. and learned Friend that his words are unnecessary and would do harm, and I hope that he will not press his proposed new Clause.

7.44 p.m.

Major Fyfe: I should like to say one or two words to my right hon. and learned Friend, in taking the argument a little further. I listened with great interest this afternoon to the Home Secretary pleading with the Committee to be lenient on one aspect of the Bill. He was going to introduce an Amendment which might provide that the Prerogative powers of mercy were not impaired at all by the Bill. That is essentially different from the point which I am now putting. That was in regard to an Amendment to be moved by my right hon. Friend and not by someone from the back benches. It is rather difficult to see why there should be an objection to a Clause which makes it clear that the Prerogative powers are not impaired when my right hon. Friend thinks it necessary to introduce an Amendment to deal with the Prerogative powers.

The Attorney-General: I thought I made it clear that my objection to the proposed new Clause is in regard to the Common Law powers. I quite agree that you need to safeguard the Prerogative powers, and we have done that already in the original Act, which will be read with this Bill. I hope I have made my meaning clear. My argument referred to the Common Law powers.

Major Fyfe: Taking my right hon. and learned Friend on the ground which he chooses, let me examine the position for a moment. One of the rights for which the Common Law exists is to preserve order, and one of the methods used consistently was the institution of military courts, that is, courts established after a proclamation of martial law. That is one of the modes of machinery which have actually been used in the application of martial law. We have then established a series of courts which are sufficiently analogous to other courts to require a Preamble to this Bill. Now my right hon. and learned Friend says that it is absolutely clear that the new system of courts cannot be imagined or mistaken or by any means thought to interfere with the other system which may


be necessary under martial law. I can only hope that if this adamant attitude continues, the perplexed military commanders will add to their other occupations during these difficult times the perusal of my right hon. and learned Friend's speeches, instead of having the assistance of a clear Act of Parliament.
Question, "That the Clause be read the Second time," put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — PREAMBLE.

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. GLENVIL HALL:

In page 1, line 4, to leave out from "Act," to the end of the paragraph.

In line 6, after "by," to insert "special."

In line 6, to leave out "martial."

The Deputy-Chairman: These three Amendments are not in Order. It will not be necessary to amend the Preamble in this way, as no Amendment has been made to the Bill to render such Amendment necessary. These words are part of a recital and cannot be affected by the Bill.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is it possible for you, Colonel Clifton Brown, to give me any reason why these Amendments are ruled out of Order? Where in the Bill is any provision made for extending martial law to the civil population, which in my submission, is the essence of the Preamble?

The Deputy-Chairman: Any Amendment to the Preamble must be rendered necessary by an Amendment which has already been made to the Bill.

Mr. Hall: Surely the Home Secretary added his name to an Amendment which I had previously put on the Paper, to retain in Section 5 of the original Act the words which precluded the extension of courts-martial to civilians. It seems to me that the retention of words in the Preamble dealing with the application of courts-martial to civilians is now, to say the least, very misleading.

The Deputy-Chairman: One cannot alter what is the recital of the 1939 Act. That may or may not be correct, but one cannot alter it very well. I am afraid that I must rule the Amendments out of Order.

Amendment made: In page 1, line 11, leave out "extend," and insert:
remove doubts as to the extent of."—[Sir J. Anderson.]

Preamble, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — TITLE.

Amendment made: Leave out "Extend further," and insert:
Remove doubts as to the extent of."—[Sir J. Anderson.]

Title, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with Amendments [Title amended]; as amended, considered.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): There is a manuscript Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Colonel A. Evans) but which under the circumstances I think it is necessary to withdraw, if the hon. and gallant Member will agree.

7.52 p.m.

Colonel A. Evans: I wish to move, in Clause 1, page 2, line 10, at the end, to insert:
Provided that in any area in the United Kingdom in which the competent military authority certifies that by reason of active military operations against the enemy or their imminence it is not practicable to refer for trial to any civil court the case of a person not being a person subject to the Naval Discipline Act, to military law or to the Air Force Act charged with having committed an offence against the safety of His Majesty's Forces or the efficient prosecution of the war such person may be kept in military custody and tried and punished by court-martial as if he were a person subject to military law.
I put this Amendment down on the Committee stage, but, unfortunately, it was not called. I think the meaning and effect of this Amendment will be obvious to the House. No hon. Member who has already taken part in the Debate on this Measure has challenged the right or the necessity for this House to give every assistance in its power to the competent military authority who will have the responsibility of repelling an invasion wherever that might take place. I think it is the desire of the country that we should do everything possible to assist the general officer commanding in the discharge of that responsible duty.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. Is it in order to move on the Report stage an Amendment which was down on the Committee stage and which was not called?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, quite. I think that the hon. and gallant Member will have heard what I said when I called this Amendment.

Colonel Evans: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I would draw the attention of the House to this fact, that if this Amendment were carried, it would apply only to certain specific offences of the gravest character. It would apply only in the case of an offence committed against the safety of His Majesty's Forces or the efficient prosecution of the war—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid I must stop the hon. and gallant Member. I have no doubt whatever that this Amendment is one which I cannot accept and put to the House because it is outside the scope of the Bill. I gave the hon. and gallant Member an opportunity of moving it because I had not really had time to consider it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Would I have better fortune if I also moved an Amendment which I have put down and which was not called? It is a most important Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That Amendment I do know about.

Mr. Hall: May I move it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: My answer would be that I would not reject it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

7.57 p.m.

Major Milner: May I say one word? I am aware that time is short, but there is one matter in connection with this Bill which has not been considered and which the Home Secretary might bear in mind. An hon. and gallant Gentleman has just wanted to move an Amendment which has been ruled out of Order, in which he sought to reverse the whole principle of the Bill and to make civilians in certain circumstances subject to courts-martial. The matter which I want the Home Secretary to consider is as to what procedure will be adopted in order to ensure that in all cases, or at any rate in all practical cases, the military authorities shall hand over to the properly constituted authorities those found committing offences which come under the Bill which is now

before us. The Bill provides for a certain procedure, namely, by way of special courts to deal with these cases. What guarantee is there that the military authorities will take advantage of the procedure provided under this Bill and hand over those whom they find committing offences under the Bill to the courts set up under it? I respectfully submit that the Home Secretary might properly consider whether he might not request the War Office to issue instructions to the military authorities or something to that effect. The Home Secretary shakes his head—

Sir J. Anderson: No.

Major Milner: I am sorry. As I understand it, the whole purpose of this Bill is to avoid the necessity of courts-martial and the application of military law in regard to civilians. There is nothing in the Bill to say that military law shall not operate, by which I mean the drumhead procedure, and so on and so forth. In order to ensure that it shall not operate except in those immediately pressing and urgent cases where civilians are caught in the act of committing most serious offences, I suggest that some instruction or guidance ought to be issued to military authorities in this matter. I should have thought that military officers would have been grateful to have been freed of the responsibility of dealing with these offences and that they would certainly if requested take action, so that these special courts might have the opportunity of dealing with those cases. I do not desire to say any more except that I hope that course is likely to be adopted.

8 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: Undoubtedly steps will be taken to acquaint all concerned with the procedure which is established in connection with these courts. That, of course, will apply not only to the military authorities, but also to members of the courts. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the military authorities are most anxious to be relieved of responsibilities which they might otherwise have had to take and that they have adopted an attitude which makes it clear that all unnecessary obstructions will be removed.

Colonel A. Evans: I take it that the competent military authorities will not be prohibited from proclaiming a state of martial law in a forward area if they consider it necessary?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I allowed the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) to make his remarks because I understood them to refer to a question of administration of this Bill, but I think that when the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Colonel A. Evans) asks his question he is going not only outside the scope of the Bill, but is dealing with something not in the Bill and therefore not permissible on the Debate on Third Reading.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I make no apology for the few words I have to offer, because the understanding that we should try to get the Bill through all stages by half-past seven, which has been broken, has not been broken by Members on this side. I think that the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow will show that, as one hon. Member has said, the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary between them this afternoon have made very heavy going. They have definitely given me the impression that there is behind this Measure, which has been pushed through in a most curious way, something which has not yet been brought out into the open. I hope I am wrong, but I have a strong suspicion that that is so. It seems to me that if the Home Secretary's Second Reading speech was to be taken at its face value—and, of course, I do so take it—he already had all the powers which were required to his hand in the original Measure or under Regulations which he could have brought in under other Acts of Parliament. Here we have a Measure which was brought in for the simple purpose of extending to the civil population courts-martial which previously could have been used only in the case of members of His Majesty's Forces. That purpose has now gone. These new courts are not courts-martial and are to be used only in a state of emergency, or in the face of enemy action, actually taking place or apprehended. It seems to me that the powers given are greatly in excess of anything which any Government should ask from this House.
Although, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) we have got the Government to accept one Amendment, I, for one, am not too hopeful that

that Amendment will give us the safeguard which many of us have fought for, and which all of us would like to see embodied in the Bill. A review is an excellent thing, but it is only a review, and I take it that it will not enable the whole case to be gone into when a person is sentenced to death. We have, very properly, through the centuries, built up in this country certain safeguards, so that persons who are sentenced to death may appeal; and it is a shocking thing that this House should to-day hand over that right, in the way it has done. A person sentenced to death in that way should have the undoubted right not only to appeal but to appear himself and to give and call evidence.
It seems to me that the words that have been accepted by the Home Secretary will not give that right which should be given in a free country. If you are not going to shoot everyone found guilty, if it is possible for a person to be kept for a review of his case, then obviously he can be kept until he has had his appeal considered in a proper manner. It is simply begging the question for the Home Secretary to say that the situation will be such that present ordinary safeguards will not be possible and that therefore they cannot be allowed. Without saying more, I desire to protest most strongly against the way this Bill has been introduced, altered, pushed through the House, and all attempts at improvements stone-walled by the Ministers in charge, in a shocking way.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I do not want to make another speech on this matter, but I do not think it would be right to allow the Third Reading to go without expressing my profound conviction that either this Measure will never be brought into operation, or this House will bitterly regret that it has departed so easily and so irresponsibly from all those constitutional safeguards which for hundreds of years we have so patiently built up, and by which the lives, the liberties and the fortunes of private citizens are protected from arbitrary action by the Executive. I do not want to say more: I have given reasons for my belief throughout the Debates; but I wanted, before it was too late, to put on record the profound conviction that I hold, that the day will come when this


House will be sorry, when it will look back with a little shame as well as regret at the proceedings on this Bill.

8.9 p.m.

Colonel Gretton: I do not want to detain the House except to say that I am one of those, probably a small minority, who regret that this Bill has been introduced, who consider that the Government had full power to ensure the safety of the Realm and the proper prosecution of the war, in the ordinary processes of courts-martial and military courts, and that it was unnecessary to set up an intermediate process, distorting the civil law of this country by a kind of hybrid court which is neither one thing nor the other. The Bill, as originally introduced, before its amendment, was quite impossible. The Government have accepted Amendments, which, in certain important respects, modify the over-drastic proposals embodied in the Bill. With the very serious and important undertakings which have been given during the Committee stage, the Bill becomes much less objectionable. I wish that I could support it heartily. I am one of those who think that every sacrifice and even surrender of principle for the time being is worth while for the prosecution of the war, but I do not believe that this Bill is really required. Therefore, it is with much reluctance that I have seen it reach the Third Reading stage. I trust that the Bill may not be required, and that it will never be necessary to put it into force. I look with some trepidation—even with the Amendments and undertakings embodied in it—to its operation, should it of necessity be forced into operation in the country.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee Progress, 23rd July].

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair.]

NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTRIBUTION.

Question again proposed,
That the law relating to the National Defence Contribution be amended (as respects all accounting periods beginning on

or after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and so much of any accounting period beginning before that date as falls on or after that date) so as to disallow deductions in certain cases in respect of interest, annuities and annual payments, and in respect of payments under certain contracts or arrangements relating to indemnification in respect of war damage."—[Sir K. Wood.]

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The importance of the Bill which has just passed through another Committee of this House has somewhat telescoped the time-table for the further discussion of the Budget, and I propose, therefore, in accordance I am sure with the wish of the Committee, to compress my remarks as far as possible, and I shall endeavour to make my comments as concise and as precise as is consonant with expressing my views. It is my intention to address myself to four main subjects. The first is the specific proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer both in their totality and in their individual detail. In the second place, I intend to make certain suggestions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for stopping minor leakages and for possible amendments in the law in a later Budget whenever that may come. I intend to say a word on the expenditure of the country which is uncovered by revenue and conclude with what I think the B.B.C. would call a Socialist commentary on the financial problems of the country. Without more to do, I will "Go to it."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he assumed office, found two main legacies of his predecessor's April effort. There was general recognition of the inadequacy of the total tax revenue provided, and there was the unpopularity in many quarters of the House of the Purchase Tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be congratulated on the fact that it was not long after he assumed office that he set out to remedy these two evil legacies and that there has not been a great deal of delay in setting his new proposals before us. It is rather a striking commentary upon the state of public opinion, both inside and outside the House of Commons, that, in spite of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is imposing taxation which, in the current year, is estimated to bring in £126,000,000, and in a full year no less than £239,000,000, practically the only comment of the Press, as far as I have


seen it, is to criticise him for not putting on sufficient taxation. I will only say this for his comfort. I think that the field in which the public are asking him to tax them more heavily, is an easier one for him to face than the field in which everyone might be asking him to take taxes off, because the burdens were intolerably high.
Passing from this question of totality I come to the individual details. With regard to the standard rate of Income Tax, I gather that he has kept a bit in hand, with a view to a further rise in the tax in a later Budget. It looks to me as if he had got an asymptotic figure in his mind, to which the curve of rising Income Tax would always approach but never fully reach. I am not at all sure that it would not have been better in this respect to have taken a somewhat bolder line from the start. I turn to a very interesting part of the Chancellor's proposals, and one which I see in most comments in the papers has been described as the one brilliant improvisation. That is the compulsory weekly payment of Income Tax. From the approval with which his proposal has been greeted, I think the right hon. Gentleman may probably take it that, in spite of the numerous deductions which are already made from wages, and which are in many cases onerous in their total effect, his plan for securing weekly payments is welcomed and will be preferred by the majority of the wage-earners to the present method, which draws large sums which are very difficult to face at certain intervals.
There are three small questions with regard to this, that I would like the right hon. Gentleman or the Financial Secretary, to answer. In the first place, what is to be the position where a man has two or more employers? It is quite usual for a man to work for one employer for a certain time, it may be for a week or a month or more and for another employer, for a further period of the year What will be the position in that case? In the second place, I am not very clear precisely when this new proposal is coming into operation, and what is the rate of tax to be imposed when it does come into operation. As I understand it—and I speak subject to correction—the tax has hitherto been paid in half-yearly instalments on 1st January and 1st July. It is now 24th July, and there-

fore, the 1st July instalment has already been paid. What I understand to be the case is that that instalment is part of the tax of 1939–40 and therefore, presumably, if it had been the full rate, it would have been the 7s. rate. Without the Chancellor's proposals the next instalment would be on 1st January and that would be the first instalment that would be paid for the year 1940–41. I would like to know whether that is correct and when the weekly levies will begin? Will they begin prior to 1st January, will the date be in November, as I have seen suggested? And what period does it cover? I understand that it has been the practice, under the voluntary system of deduction by employers for them to charge in some cases a small commission, which is not taken out of the wage-earner's pocket but comes out of the money paid to the Government. If that is correct, I would be glad to know whether it is proposed to continue that commission when the deduction is made compulsory? There is, of course, no commission where employers deduct contributions for unemployment and national health insurance, because that is a statutory obligation, but the other practice has been voluntarily and I would like to know whether it is to be continued?
We have also to face the Chancellor's addition to the beer and tobacco duties. I am afraid the smokes and drinks are a sort of Jerusalem donkey, on which successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have unloaded fresh parts of their burdens. They have seemed unable to resist this form of taxation. I am quite sure many people on all sides of the Committee feel these burdens are very heavy, but this is a war Budget and we must recognise that all sections of the community must bear an additional charge. Somewhat the same remarks apply to the Entertainment Tax which, unfortunately, the Chancellor has lowered to seats above 3d. I believe there are 3d. seats in some parts of the country but these, at any rate will be free of the tax.
That brings me to the Purchase Tax which is a slightly longer description for what is generally known in other countries as a sales tax. A sales tax has always had a pretty bad name in Labour circles. It has been the name for a tax devised by people who wanted to push on to the poorer classes a large part of the burden of taxation. Although


the Chancellor's predecessor called the tax a Purchase Tax instead of a sales tax, it did not start with a very favourable reception in our minds when it was introduced. Apart from that, there was a considerable number of positive definite objections which we took to the tax in the form in which it was originally introduced. In the first place, in our opinion the Purchase Tax created an unequal distribution between direct and indirect taxation, and turned the scale very much against the working people, and even the poorest classes of the whole community. In the second place, the tax, as we saw it originally, although it did exclude food, included a very large number of the necessities of life and for that reason it would have added very considerably to the cost of living, with dire consequences in many directions which I will not specify now.
It was a tax imposed at a flat rate and both in this House, and in the article to which the Chancellor was good enough to refer, I criticised that aspect of the tax most strongly. That tax also had an unconstitutional method attached to it; it was to be brought in by the Treasury, who were left to decide what should be included, what was to be the rate, when it was to commence and, in fact, all the details with regard to it, a procedure almost unprecedented in the history of British taxation. The only analogy I know of is that of the Import Duties which is quite a different matter. That seemed to us highly objectionable. We felt it would involve immense new machinery and was a most unsuitable tax to introduce during the war. However, the Chancellor has made a very large number of alterations. He has brought this tax into a Budget on which he has put on considerable additional burdens of direct taxation, so that he has altered the unequal distribution which appeared to us so unreasonable in his predecessor's Budget. His predecessor put 6d. on the Income Tax and to that the Chancellor has added another 1s., making a total of 1s. 6d. for the two Budgets, and that is much more comparable with the proposals of the Purchase Tax, than it was when Lord Simon introduced it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has removed from the purview of the tax two important necessities of life which form a large part of the expenditure of the poor outside food, namely, boots and clothing for children. In my opinion

that makes a substantial difference. I gather that the Chancellor will now specify positively the articles that are to be included in the tax and we may hope that one or two other absolute necessities may find their way out of the tax before it is finally decided. At any rate boots and clothing for children are definitely excluded.
Still more important, the Chancellor has done something which I strongly recommended. Instead of making the tax a flat-rate tax he has made a step in the tax, and a very substantial step, so that luxuries and semi-luxuries are taxed at one rate, and things which are necessaries or on the border of being necessaries, are taxed at a lower rate. That, again, makes a considerable difference. He has also dealt with the question of the Treasury imposing the tax. We now have the specified rate of tax put forward in this Bill and it gives the House the right of saying not "Aye" or "No" just once but of fairly discussing the matter if it is so minded, and further, it is brought into line with the tax on beer, tobacco and other things. That is a considerable alteration of a suitable character. Finally, he has told us that, contrary to the expectations of many of us, it will not involve the appointment of a large number of new officials; in fact, he hopes and has administrative ground for his hope, that no additional officials will have to be appointed. Therefore the Chancellor has met us on the points of unequal distribution, on necessities, on the flat rate of tax, and, for the moment, on the question of the choice by the Treasury, and we recognise that this is of course a coalition Government and that we cannot expect to have everything our own way. Therefore I am authorised by my hon. Friends of the Labour party to say that, though we still do not like very much the idea of a Purchase Tax, knowing its history, we will not oppose the principle in view of the fact that it is part of a general increase in taxation, including direct taxes.
But there are two or three points of reserve which I should like to make. I am a little sceptical of some of the right hon. Gentleman's figures. He is putting on a tax of a third on the wholesale value of luxury commodities, and he says that, in practice, that will work out as a fourth of the retail value. Doing the sum backwards, I gather that the way he comes


to that conclusion is this. He says an article, wholesale, costs a certain number of shillings and, without the tax altogether, the retailer puts on about a third, and therefore the third of the wholesale figure is about a fourth of the retail figure. The argument is that we can assume that the retail price will go up only a quarter whereas the wholesale price has gone up a third. That assumes, of course, that, in the process of reaching the consumer, there is no gross profit on the tax as well as on the article. It may be that the Chancellor can assure us that that will be the case. I am doubtful about that myself. I raised the point when it was originally brought forward by his predecessor and pointed out that, not only would the retailer try to add to it, but that he would have some slight excuse for putting on the addition. I had a letter from a large retailer pointing out that they really would be obliged to make some increase because they would be put to expense in various ways. I hope the Chancellor will see that, if it is necessary for the retailer to make any additional increase on the actual amount of the wholesale tax, this addition is kept as low as possible and does not amount to any large figure, other than the mere out-of-pocket expenses to which the retailer is put, even if it is to be as much as that. There is another question that I should like to put. What steps is he taking to prevent consumers attempting to forestall the tax by buying in large quantities, practically clearing the emporiums out, between now and the operation of the tax? What steps is he taking to see that they do not take advantage of the situation to put up all their goods in something like the proportion, with a view to making a profit out of the goods already in stock, which they are not really entitled to make? I suppose the Government must have foreseen it and I hope they have taken steps to deal with it, because it is obviously a highly important matter that that should be done.
Now I come to a point on which I still ask the Chancellor to make quite a small concession. In reading the Resolution in regard to the Purchase Tax I find that paragraph c (ii) says that the Treasury are to have power to vary from time to time the basic rate, and paragraph c (iii) gives them power to put

articles into one category, take them out of another and make changes of that kind. I do not suppose anyone wants to pin the Government and the Treasury down absolutely to one final and complete schedule for all time. If, as the year goes through, the Chancellor only wants to make some technical change while retaining the whole principle of differentiation which he has made, I should not deny him the right, through the Treasury, to make those small alterations. I hope we shall get a definite assurance that the changes, if made at all, will be only of a very minor kind. If not, we shall have to oppose that paragraph. But I cannot conceive of any defence for paragraph c (ii), and I feel confident that the Chancellor, who has been quite reasonable up to now, will see his way to remove that altogether from the Resolution.
There was some ground originally—I do not think it was an overriding ground and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has done away with it—in the initial imposition of the tax, for saying, "We will not declare the rate because we want to reserve that until the very moment of its being imposed in order to prevent forestalling." I could see some ground for that. I think the major reason, of the House of Commons having the right to do what it likes, was more important, but there can really be no reason why, if there is to be an alteration in the rate, it should be done by the Treasury and not by the House. I am aware that the Chancellor gives the House the final say in the matter, but it is a single vote, and that to my mind is not enough. After all, this proposal is much more on the analogy of the taxes on beer and tobacco and all the rest of them, than of the Import Duties, and there is no more reason why the Chancellor should give the Treasury power to alter the rate of this Purchase Tax than give it power to alter the rate of the Income Tax. The House would regard it as unreasonable, if he said, "The Treasury can put up the rate of Income Tax from 8s. 6d. to any figure it likes and this House shall only have the right, after it has been done, to say whether it approves the change or not." The Chancellor would not dream of doing such a thing. His supporters would not hear of it for a moment. Equally, we cannot accept any


idea that the Treasury shall have the right to alter the rate and put it up from 16 to 40 or 50 per cent. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, in the interest of the conciliation that he has shown in the matter of the tax, to withdraw that part of his proposal.
The suggestions that I have to make with regard to alterations are concerned, first, with evasion of Income Tax. I am not thinking of the larger evasions which have been dealt with in Finance Bills of the past, but of the small evasions. There are many small matters of which no return is made by some taxpayers, or there is a failure to return individual items, such as interest on bank deposits. Very often it is a question of an oversight on the part of the taxpayer. There is also the failure to announce dollar securities, which I am afraid is not an oversight, but a deliberate attempt to escape doing what ought to be done. I suggest to the Chancellor that there are two ways of dealing with these things. First, he can ask the taxpayer in any return of income a positive question on these points to which the taxpayer must be compelled definitely to say whether he has or has not any of the items in question; and secondly, he can go to the people at the other end of the transaction and ask them whether their client has or has not got income from this source.
The second matter I want to raise concerns the Legacy Duty as distinct from the Estate Duty. I should like the Chancellor to look into this matter to see, first, whether the Legacy Duty as distinct from the Estate Duty might not be increased, and secondly, whether it might not be graduated. There is also a small point about legacies that are left what is called "free of Legacy Duty." I am aware that this does not mean that they escape the tax, but a curious mathematical consequence is that they escape a small part of the tax, and I think this ought to be considered. Another question which probably the Chancellor will not want to handle during the war, but which ought to be handled some time, is the incorporation of the Legacy Duty with the Estate Duty into the same consolidated act. A further point I want to put is whether the Chancellor might not ask auditors to state the names of the clients whose accounts they audit. I do not suggest they should give him the accounts,

but they should state the names of the firms for whom they are acting. I think that the right hon. Gentleman might discover some leakage in that way. My last point is that where Income Tax, Surtax, Land Tax, and Mineral Rights Duty are held back after the date on which they are due, interest might be charged on the delay in paying the account. There is no reason why this should not be done, and if it were done, I think the Chancellor would get a quicker return of revenue and a perfectly legitimate source of additional revenue.
I come now to the matter which has already been discussed in the Committee. The total bill which the Chancellor has to meet is, in round figures, £3,500,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor budgeted for some £1,234,000,000 The Chancellor told us a good deal about his new taxes, but he did not tell us whether, in the review of the financial situation, there was any change in the likely yield of the taxes which his predecessor had announced. I am rather hopeful that, in view of the large amount of money that is being spent by the Government, these taxes may bring in substantially more than £1,234,000,000 when the time actually comes. However that may be, the Chancellor is adding about £126,000,000 for the current year, and so we reach a figure in the neighbourhood of £1,360,000,000, which leaves at least £2,100,000,000 to be found. I should like to give the Committee a few figures which are conjectural, but probably somewhat in the neighbourhood of facts. Suppose that we are able to purchase by our capital assets, mainly in the United States of America, something in the neighbourhood of £300,000,000; suppose that we are able to get from our Dominions something in the neighbourhood of £100,000,000 without having to pay current cash; and suppose that the letting down of industrial plant which is unrepaired brings us the effect of another: £200,000,000, this will still leave £1,500,000,000 to be found. The question is, can loans out of genuine saving provide that amount? I ask, why not? When Mr. Keynes wrote, he thought we should have difficulty in finding £500,000,000 or £600,000,000. He thought it necessary to propose compulsory lending in order to achieve that amount. I think there is no possible doubt that Mr. Keynes' figure has been far exceeded by


voluntary lending already. Probably we have already, out of actual saving, reached a rate in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000,000 a year, and there is no reason whatever, if proper steps be taken and proper encouragement given, why the amount should not go far above that figure. It all depends upon Members of this Committee and prominent persons outside.

Mr. Ellis Smith: And on the policy of the Government.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: It depends upon the Government and everybody concerned. It must be remembered that this large amount of money, this £3,500,000,000, that is being expended by the Government, although to the State it is expenditure, is income to the people who receive it. It goes into the pockets of the people of this country to a very large extent, and it is for them to save enough to enable the bill to be met. I believe that if we all use our influence to the very best of our ability and support the splendid campaign that Sir Robert Kindersley is organising, we can get something which very nearly approaches at any rate the £1,500,000,000 that has still to be found. It is essential that we should do this, because in so far as we fall short of it, we shall reach inflation, and that will mean an indiscriminate, indeterminate and undecided rise in prices of a general kind which will press most heavily upon the people who are least able to bear it.

Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend define what inflation is?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: That is a very hard nut to crack. It is like asking someone to define a loaf of bread. We know it when we see it, but it is not so easy to define it.

Mr. E. Smith: The German people know what inflation is.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I come now to the last part of my theme. It is now several years since I pointed out from this Box that the financial methods of the Government which preceded the present one were leading to an impossible position. I pointed out that borrowing for the so-called Defence Loan in time of peace was an utterly indefensible operation. I pointed out that even if no

war came, there was no satisfactory means of meeting the bill; and the Lord President of the Council admitted the problem and admitted that he himself saw no solution. As war drew nearer, and we got the first stages of the conscription of men, I pointed out that there ought to be a tax on fortunes in order to meet the bill while we were still in peace time and so face the growing burden of debt. A tax on fortunes, or capital if you like to call it so, though it does not provide current revenue, does offset the creation of debt. That was refused at that time, and it was refused again after war broke out. But the attempt was made to buy off opposition by a vague promise to make a levy on war fortunes after the war was over. Let me examine what that means. It means that after the war is over those people who had great fortunes in existence before the war are not to be touched by the levy. In consequence, after the war, the same gross inequalities of wealth as existed before the war began will continue.
I say, definitely, that that will not "fill the bill." The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not imposing a tax on capital wealth now. He says he cannot do it in the middle of a war, and that it would not produce the cash he requires. Admittedly, it is very late in the day, and in an interim Budget, when we are already far advanced in the war, the situation is very different from what it was before the war began. But when the war is over, we cannot and will not go back to gross inequalities of riches and the disgustiing exhibition of luxuries, cheek by jowl with grinding poverty in other large sections of the population. Fortunately for this country we have had a very severe warning not very far off across the Channel. The 200 families, whose intransigence has ruined our neighbour, have tried to save themselves and their fortunes, and in the process have ruined their country. Instead of the brave line that we have seen in the Northern countries, when faced with a far more overwhelming military disaster, they have tried to protect their wealth and their possessions and I do not believe they are going to succeed.
Our governing classes, taken as a whole, are not unpatriotic, and it is only part of them—perhaps a very small part—which is selfish and self-centre in the way that


their counterparts in France have been. During the war we shall all have to live a simpler and perhaps a healthier form of life. After the war is over, we must retain that simpler form of life and that greater equality which will be brought about among the people of all classes. The fiscal machinery for making this change is to have a substantial reduction in individual fortunes brought about, definitely and objectively, in order to wipe away a large part or the whole of the war debt. The people of this country will start again with renewed vigour, a strong, a virile nation, prepared to face the future with fresh confidence, united as never before, one people, with our heritage of liberty and democracy, which will be our glory and lasting possession, and an example to the whole world.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: I will try at once to enter into friendly competition with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) in being as brief as I possibly can. I will try to avoid those topics which have been the subject of criticism by my right hon. Friend, and seek to confine my observations to some more general aspects of the Budget in relation to the financial task of the nation as a whole. I, in principle, have no objection to the proposals he has placed before the Committee, with clarity and ability, for a capital tax upon fortunes. Such a plan would have to be judged solely on its merits as a means of prosecuting the war at the present time. However, for my part, I believe that such a proposal would be a hindrance at the present time and that it would not produce the ready money which the Chancellor of the Exchequer demanded yesterday, and will continue to demand At the moment all that it would give him would be a number of titles to property and securities which would be ineffective and of no use for the immediate purposes in hand.
I am glad that the interval between the last Budget and this Budget has been so short. We were looking forward to the Autumn Budget, and the fact that we are considering it in July shows that the Government realise the situation, and are not going to allow that situation to drift. The Committee and the country are indebted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for

the admirably clear and concise statement which he made on the country's financial necessities at the present time. I think it is a clearer and more understandable statement of the position than we have had since the outbreak of the war, and some time before. Anyone who heard that speech, and anyone who has taken the trouble to read it, can be in no doubt what our necessities are, and what his individual responsibilities and duties ought to be at the present time. The proposals, taken as a whole, which were laid before the Committee yesterday, as a remedy for the situation which the right hon. Gentleman diagnosed, are, of course, quite inadequate as a solution of our financial needs. They would have been condemned out of hand completely as a remedy for that purpose, as were those of his predecessor, if he had in fact put them forward as a remedy or solution of our present problems. He stated definitely, however, that the proposals which he made yesterday were an interim statement, and we must look forward with trepidation to what other proposals he may have to make to meet the nation's needs.
It is clear that the Budget leaves unbridged by tangible proposals a gap of something like £2,000,000,000, and it reduces the actual amount of war and domestic expenditure which it is meeting from taxation from 46 per cent., as it was left at the time of the last financial review, to 39 per cent. If that proportion were to remain, it would leave us with our present difficulties unsolved and with a post-war problem, which in any case must be terribly difficult, which would be quite beyond control. We recognise that in war time the Budget is not a Budget in the accepted sense. We have a series of statistical reviews with such proposals as are brought forward from time to time to meet the changing conditions. There is no such thing as a financial Maginot Line, and thank God for that. What the situation demands is a general strategic plan for financing the war and for bringing the resources of production, expenditure, distribution and man-power into a comprehensive whole into which the financial machinery of the country and the Treasury could fall as a necessary part. The proposals of the Chancellor yesterday were much less drastic than the country expected. If


that be the case, it should not be regarded as a licence to the individual to proceed as he thinks fit. If the financial arrangements of the Government still leave a gap to be filled and great sums be raised which are not to be raised by the actual proposals of the Budget, it is up to the individual citizen throughout the land to do what he can consciously to direct his expenditure and savings to fill gaps which the Government proposals leave unfilled. The taxpayer by this time has clearly realised that there is no escape from this burden. It is not a choice between Income Tax and other forms of tax which he may consider easier to bear. The actual burden is imposed at the time when expenditure is incurred.
If we cannot by taxation and by voluntary saving raise all that is necessary, it will inevitably be raised by the process of inflation, which the right hon. Gentleman yesterday recognised must arise from a situation which he himself described as fundamentally unsound. I am bound to say that I think the danger of inflation is probably much greater than the right hon. Gentleman allowed the Committee to suppose. It is very largely disguised by the fact that we are still living to a great extent on stocks. There is not in my observation any considerable curtailment of public expenditure in any direction. There has been an enormous transfer of spending power from one section of the community to another. I have seen a figure which suggests that the spending power of those engaged in the engineering trade has been increased by £200,000,000 a year. In the popular restaurants the average value of the ticket of any individual customer is not less than it was before the war. It has substantially increased. The man who supplies me with my modest supply of navy cut told me when I went in on Monday that I had better have two tins instead of one, and he said that there had been no reduction in the consumption of tobacco in spite of the tax. The danger of inflation is disguised by the fact that we are living upon stocks, and it has been reinforced by the direct method of borrowing the surplus balances of the banks. I know it is contended that that is not a direct inflationary proposal, but I think it is.

Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. Member tell us what he means by inflation?

Mr. White: Perhaps those are matters which we might discuss with economy of the time of the Committee in some other quarters of the House. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested yesterday, as I understood it, that we were probably somewhere near the limit of the income which could be raised by existing taxation, I am bound to say that I was rather inclined to agree with him. The difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman arise from the fact—and here again he has my sympathy in his position—that we have not had, nor have we to-day, any comprehensive plan for war-time production, for the distribution of our labour resources and our finances. We can only hope to reach our maximum war effort by the closest, indeed by complete, cooperation between the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Labour and the Treasury, in which the Treasury must conform to the major strategic plan for the prosecution of the war. The right hon. Gentleman himself suggested that the reduction of consumption by means of taxation is a very clumsy process. It is, as he said, a double-edged weapon. The more successful a tax is in reducing consumption the less successful it is as a means of raising revenue.
Another point which is of great importance is that the increase of the Income Tax, if pushed any further, may lead in some directions to the breaking of contractual agreements and arrangements, which may have a very bad effect upon the morale of the country and hinder the prosecution of the war. The same process may very well lead to the curtailment of expenditure in certain directions which is positively beneficial to the prosecution of the war. What is needed, in my judgment, is a comprehensive lay-out of the necessary production for war effort by the Ministry of Supply, accompanied by a progressive transfer of the man-power of the nation from unnecessary non-essential industry to war effort. It is a lamentable fact that after nearly a year of war it should be only now that the Ministry of Labour has called in assistance from outside and is making the necessary surveys, the necessary examination of the statistical foundation, upon which such transfers can take place. All these years, of course, the Ministry of Labour has been a ministry of unemployment. Its mind has been divorced entirely from constructive proposals. In passing, I would say that in


mobilising and transferring resources of man-power in this country I hope that it will not deliberately throw away so many of the valuable brains and so much of the knowledge and experience which are possessed by many of those now registered on the aliens section of the central register. The problem of consumption by the civil population can, I am convinced, be solved only on these lines, coupled with the rationing of food and also the rationing of materials by the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Supply.
War finance is not an isolated financial proposition. It must be conditioned by the balance of war production. I said just now that I did not disagree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if I was right in understanding him to say that we were somewhere near the limit of the practical yield of existing taxation. I am as fully aware as anybody of the difficulty of recasting our fiscal instruments in war-time, but I am certain that we have to recast our methods of direct taxation. I hold that the standard rate of Income Tax should be reduced and made applicable to all incomes, and it should, of course, be accompanied by a steeper graduation, on the lines of the present Supertax. It may be argued that it would depress still further the meagre standard of life of the poorer sections of the community, but nobody acquainted with me in this House would suspect me of advocating anything likely to have that effect. It is necessary to couple with any scheme of that kind, outside the wage structure of the country altogether, a system of family allowances. It can be done, by means of a direct scheme or, if that is not possible in war-time, by means of rebates, as it is to some extent done at the present time.
It is an essential aspect of our war finance that it should be equitable, that there should be no injustice and that the standard of the lower-paid sections of the community should be maintained. I am proud to think that Parliament can, in these times of war, be vigilant to see that steps are taken in those directions. Something has been done, not always as we would all wish to have it done, and perhaps not as we should do it in peacetime, in regard to old age pensions, unemployment insurance, workmen's compensation and the Ministry of Food milk

scheme. They show that the people of this country are determined, even in these times, to see that the standards of life and health are not unduly depressed. I am convinced that the mobilisation of our resources for a total war can be carried out successfully only on those lines, namely, the organisation of production and of man-power, the rationing of materials and the taking of measures to maintain the wages and standard of life of the poorer sections of the people.
If I may trespass for a moment longer, I would say that the reduction of civilian consumption is becoming more urgent, not only for the reasons with which we have become familiar in this discussion, but owing to the changing character of the war. It may be that, in a short time, the fortunes of war may be bound up more closely than they have been with purely economic considerations. We might find ourselves, after six months, perhaps in a little longer time, faced with a situation in Europe in which the whole of the Continent is bordering upon famine and in which the granaries of the world, in our Dominions and in the producing countries are bursting with produce of one kind or another. It does not require much reflection to see what a powerful propaganda instrument would lie there, when we were represented before the world as people who were starving Europe and preventing the producing countries from selling their goods. It seems more urgent than ever that we should divert from civilian consumption everything that can be exported from this country, in order that the exports of the country may be maintained, in order that we may be in a position to command the supply and in order that in those days we may be ready to hand over to people who are starving and in need the resources which we can command by the money which we now save, provided that the Nazi grip which has brought them into this trouble is removed. It is a matter of the gravest consequence, and it seems to me to be definitely related to the problem which we are considering this evening. In the changing aspects of the war the probability that it will assume an increasingly important economic aspect as time goes on calls for stringent restrictions of consumption and the limitation of civilian consumption to what is needed in order to


maintain ourselves in proper health and fighting efficiency.
I welcome as a most powerful aid to the Allied cause the step recently taken by President Roosevelt when he asked for a credit of £125,000,000 in order to finance the produce of South America. Again the necessity for economy is forced upon us by the fact that we have already undertaken great obligations to our Dominions for the purchase of their products, to West Africa for the stabilisation of the price of cocoa and transactions of that kind. These are all matters of which I hope the Committee will not lose sight in considering the financial matters which we are called upon to discuss.
I share the satisfaction of my right hon. Friend at the alterations which have taken place in the Purchase Tax. I further welcome the proposal to deduct Income Tax at the source, but I hope that when we come to consider that matter in detail the right hon. Gentleman will consider proposals which we may make to him for some elasticity in the administration of that tax. There are especially in the casual trades very great administrative difficulties indeed. A man may work for two or three weeks and draw money well above Income Tax level, and then when a period of unemployment comes he is left with the necessity to pay Income Tax. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir Percy Harris) yesterday made reference to the increased Tobacco Duty in relation to the supply to the troops. I realise the difficulties which lie in the way of making any exception in their favour, but a very substantial postbag which I have in dealing with correspondence from the troops indicates that they feel that they have a very real grievance, considering that despite their small earnings they have to pay the full amount for tobacco and cigarettes. I hope that some consideration will be given to that matter and that although it may not be possible to deal with it by means of a differential rate, something in the nature of a free ration might be given. Perhaps that may seem an emotional point of view, but so far as the troops are concerned, it is very real and does not help the war effort at the present time.
On the Purchase Tax, I would mention one point. Very properly, the clothing and boots of children have been exempted from the tax. There are people who, for the purposes of their trades, have to use an abnormally large number of clothes, protective clothes of one kind or another. There are, for example, the men who are called upon to clean out boiler tanks. Every time they go into a ship they have to have a new suit of overalls. Some consideration might be given to matters of that kind when we consider this question in detail. I hope that the Chancellor will look with a charitable eye on the suggestion to exempt books from the further burden that is proposed. The Budget leaves us with this great gap of at least £2,000,000,000 to be raised by loan. As my right hon. Friend above the Gangway has said, the response to the campaign for voluntary loans has been excellent. I hope that it will continue. We must continue to devote the whole of our effort, the whole of our material, and the whole of the money that is not needed for the maintenance of health and morale, to the furtherance of the war. Every citizen has his part to play, and I believe that every citizen is prepared to play it. Our strength is that we are more united than any other country. We are not yet called upon, nor is there any prospect, so far as I can see, of our being called upon, to tighten our belts, because we have made arrangements for an iron ration to be available to the people for any length of time that can be foreseen. But there is an urgent necessity for us to tighten cur purse strings in connection with everything other than the prosecution of the war.

9.23 p.m.

Sir Robert Tasker: The Chancellor, in reviewing the finances of the country, surely was confronted with a task unequalled anywhere in the world, except perhaps in the United States. My plea is that there should be an attempt to reform and simplify the method of taxation, particularly in relation to Income Tax. May I remind hon. Members that Income Tax really originated with Pitt in 1799? Out of that, the foundation of our present Income Tax system arose in 1842. There have been various alterations and amendments from time to time. It became so complicated that, in 1927,


a committee was set up to consider consolidation, and they sat for nine years. They did produce a Consolidation Bill in 1936, but we have never heard any more about it. Let us consider the situation to-day. The codification Act of 1918 comprised some 300 pages, subsequent Amendments some 400 pages, and the Finance Act, 1940, some 100 pages, a total of 800 pages. The weakness of the machinery is revealed by decisions of the courts which fill 20 large volumes. The whole position to-day is hopeless. Unless we have a change of system and some drastic steps are taken, the confusion will go on, and this Budget will make confusion worse confounded.
This Budget, like others, has its foundation based upon the Act of 1842. The whole condition has changed since that time. I think I am right in assuming that the 1842 Act was based on the 1799 Act, and in those days there were no such things as limited liability companies. The bulk of the taxation as far as Income Tax was concerned was levied on land and property. Business to-day is so much more complex, with a variety of circumstances of which we never dreamed, certain words have a precise meaning in law—other words, not legal perhaps, have precise meaning to business men. I suggest that there ought to be something rather bolder than 8s. 6d. in the £ on Income Tax. Our experience of these interim Budgets leads to the greatest confusion to taxpayer, officials of the Inland Revenue and all concerned with alteration from 5s. 6d. to 7s. and then to 7s. 6d., and the same sort of thing will happen in regard to the 8s. 6d., and before all that can be levied there may be another alteration. If we have to face it, let us face it now. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should have called it 10s. in the £. It would have had this merit at least—the collection would have been much easier. In fact, it would have been easier for my hon. and genial Friend who has twice wanted to know the meaning of inflation.

Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. Member tell us what he means by inflation?

Sir R. Tasker: Inflation means the increase beyond proper limits, especially prices. If my hon. Friend will refer to the dictionary, he will find that my defini-

tion is something with which neither he nor the dictionary would quarrel. I do not go as far as the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), but I would say that there ought to be no Income Tax at all on incomes up to £200 a year, and then there should be a sliding scale, gradually increasing, and on reaching £1,500 a year, the Surtax should be introduced. It is impossible for me to subscribe to the weird doctrine described as "soaking the rich." If you are to take 17s., 18s. or 19s. in the £, or whatever the figure may be, there does not seem to be very much left to soak. I observe that the rate above a certain figure is 9s. 6d., and I think the Surtax is another 8s. That does not leave very much; the owner does not want any soaking after that. Big estates are being wiped out one after another. The demands of the Inland Revenue are such that a man says, "I cannot any longer own the estate. What am I to do?" What is actually happening in many cases is that the Inland Revenue takes over the whole estate and makes a compassionate allowance to the owner until the debt to the State has been liquidated. If any hon. Member would like me to give him private information in that direction, I should be happy to do so.
There is one matter which seems to have been lost sight of, and which was referred to by the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd). It is the question of economy in municipal administration. The attitude of many Government Departments appears to be that it does not matter what it costs so long as they get it. That is a very wrong and unsound idea. There is an old saying that a penny saved is a penny earned. Although I do not want to indulge in a dissertation on municipal affairs, my hon. Friend was quite right, and I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when I addressed the question to him, when he was Minister of Health, inquiring how many employés there were in municipal services. In 1916 the answer was that there were over 900,000. To-day there must be over 1,000,000. That is one direction in which great economies can be effected. What wealth do they produce? I refuse to believe that it is essential or necessary to have five or six people auditing every account that goes through the offices of a municipality. I received a letter this morning from a person who says:


I would like to draw your attention to an article in to-day's 'Daily Mail' by Mr. Ward Price on the subject of the enormous rise in wages in some war trades. The point is no taxation is likely to suffice, however many people are ruined or impoverished, if certain workers are paid two or three times pre-war wages or more. It is a serious matter if as Mr. Price writes the Ministries of Labour and Supply, under Mr. Ernest Bevin and Mr. Herbert Morrison respectively, collaborate nowhere with such intimate efficiency as in agreeing without demur to demands for increased time and peace rates.
What of the position in the engineering trade? At one place a girl doing skilled work is receiving £6 5s. a week. There are men employed in munitions factories receiving £8, £10 and £12, yet the highly skilled toolmaker is receiving about £4. My admiration for the skilled engineer does not diminish with the advance of years. When working in the engineering shop we thought ourselves rather "pukka" fellows to be able to work to a hundredth of an inch. That degree of accuracy is ridiculed to-day, but the operators making those tools in manufacturing munitions are receiving less than half the money that men are receiving who are looking after automatic machines. It does not end there. In common with others I drew attention to the money paid to labourers in building barracks.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what Lord Derby gets per minute for owning the land on which the workers work?

Sir R. Tasker: I do not think that is relevant, and I deprecate the introduction of personalities. I am not interested in Lord Derby or Lord anyone else. I and, I believe, the Committee are concerned in doing the right thing to the mass of the working people of the country, and we are interested in learning where injustice is being perpetrated. I brought to the notice of a Minister a case of errand boys who earned 15s. a week, going to the building of barracks and receiving more than £8. The explanation given to me was that it was due to overtime, but that will not do. Anyone engaged in business can quickly work out the time employed at 1s. 3½d., and knows that it is physically impossible to work 124 hours a week even with double time for Saturday and Sunday afternoon. That is the sort of thing that appears to be overlooked, yet the Treasury have to

find the money. A letter appeared in yesterday's "Times" stating that the Inner Temple had offered their railings to the Government. The reply which they received was that this iron could be sold only to scrap merchants. They asked for tenders, and were offered 60s. and 52s. a ton. Is it necessary to employ scrap merchants when these people, in common with others, are prepared to give their iron to the Government? Surely, that is one direction in which economy might be practised.
There are other things for which the Chancellor will be called upon to find money. One of the sources of the supply of butter, Denmark, has been cut off. There are substitutes for butter, one of them being coco-butter. When a Question on this subject was asked in the House on 29th May, the Minister replied that the main crop had to be destroyed because there was no machinery. But there was a group of persons who were quite willing to provide machinery. The machinery was obtainable, but it appeared to these people as though a certain group of vested interests regarded themselves as the sole proprietors of West Africa. As subsidies have to be provided for such an article, that ought to be taken under review by the Treasury. I have no desire to weary the Committee by giving illustrations, but there are directions in which revenue can be raised. There was at one time a Member of the House, Mr. Bottomley, who talked about unclaimed bank balances.

Mr. MacLaren: Where is he now?

Sir R. Tasker: I do not know; he may be in the place to which I shall go. A Commission was appointed to look into the question, and it was discovered that there was something like £3,000,000 of unclaimed bank balances, and by this time at 4 per cent. compound interest this amount must have risen to some £6,000,000. Nobody will say that the banks are unpatriotic. All that the Chancellor has to do is to guarantee that the money will be refunded if at any time it is claimed. That is not unreasonable. There is another direction in which £500,000 might be obtained; that is, by the payment of a tax of 5s. per cycle by the 2,000,000 cyclists in this country. Does anyone allege that the


cyclists are so unpatriotic that they would grumble at such a tax? Those of us who cycle have said very uncomplimentary things about motorists at one time or another, and I am sure the motorists have reciprocated very heartily; but we have spent money in providing tracks at the side of the roads for cyclists, and there is no reason why a tax that could be so easily collected should not be imposed by the Chancellor.
Another direction in which revenue could be obtained is one which would mean a risk of incurring the wrath of what is known as the Nonconformist conscience. Why not do what was done in former wars, in the Napoleonic wars, for instance? Why not have lotteries? What is wrong with a lottery? When we sit here and see the Box on the Table opened, and numbers are called out, is not that indulging in lotteries for Motions, and for Bills, and again we indulge in a lottery in obtaining seats in the Gallery. What hypocrisy it is to pretend that there is something wrong and vile about a lottery. I believe that a Nonconformist is as ready for a gamble as a man in the Church of England, a Roman Catholic or anyone else. If it is made legitimate, why cannot we raise revenue in this way? I am far from wishing to be Chancellor of the Exchequer but if I were Chancellor, I would welcome any scheme for raising revenue.

Mr. Barr: May I ask whether it is not a fact that former Chancellors of the Exchequer, including the late Sir Austen Chamberlain, who, in 1919, examined these very proposals, gave many reasons why they should not be adopted?

Sir R. Tasker: That may well be, but surely what happened in 1919 does not govern or influence us, or direct what we shall do, in 1940. I wish the Committee to believe that I desire to do all I can to win the war, and if my suggestions are impracticable, they will be rejected by heads wiser than mine. Whatever one may do, and whatever one may say, I want to impress upon the Committee one thing, and one thing alone, namely, that there is no division between us in this House, or outside this House, in our determination to win through, whatever the cost may be, because we are fighting for something which is dearer than life itself.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I believe that the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) would not willingly hurt anyone, but by his irresponsible statement made to-night, he has certainly hurt me. There is no truth whatever in the statement that girls of 16 years of age, in industry, are earning £6 a week. There is no truth whatever in the statement that boys are earning £10 to £12 a week.

Sir R. Tasker: I did not say that. I can send the hon. Member the name and address of the 16-year-old girl who received £6 5s. a week. I said that two errand boys, whose names I had given to the Minister, received 15s. as errand boys and £8 a week as labourers.

Mr. Smith: I repeat that no girls 16 years of age are coming out of the engineering industry with £6 a week.
This is an interim war Budget framed as an expedient for dealing with the war. Our financial policy is being carried on on a basis of expediency. In my view, which is based upon an examination of the situation, we require a short-term financial policy and a long-term financial policy. It should be based upon the mobilisation of the whole resources of the country, of the Dominions and Colonies, whose good will cannot be measured, and of all the peoples throughout the world who are prepared to co-operate with this nation in the great effort which is now being made. The economic policy of a country determines its financial position.
I was pleased to hear the Chancellor's reference to the danger of inflation. I hope that his optimism will be justified, for some of us have had concrete experience of the effect of inflation. When we remember how we came home after the last war and had to pay so guineas for a navy blue suit for which we had been used to paying £2, and saw our fellow workers come out of the factories with £4 and £5 a week, which expressed no higher value in real commodities than £2 a few years before; and when we remember the experience of our fellow workers in Germany and the suffering through which they had to go for years as the result of inflation, we cannot speak about inflation in the same irresponsible way as that in which it has been dealt with in interruptions this evening. Therefore, we on this side,


the party representing the aspirations of the people of this country, are bound to be concerned about the effect of inflation upon the standard of living, and we are pleased that the right hon. Gentleman sees its danger. We hope that his optimism will be proved correct, in order that relative stability can be maintained in the dangerous situation in which we are living.
This is a war Budget, and I am concerned whether we are getting the value from the expenditure that we ought to have. I am concerned, with my hon. Friends on this side, with the future of our people. It is on that basis that I make this contribution to the Debate. I want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to realise that the time has arrived when all the resources of this land should be mobilised in the service of the people. The principal members of the Government are working hard and long, and they are assisted by loyal civil servants in the task which they have undertaken. That work and that loyalty, however, have not found expression in industry. I am reinforced in what I am saying by what I have learned in consultation with people in managerial, administrative and supervisory positions and by large numbers of manual workers, to whom I am pleased to belong. While it is true that great improvements have been brought about, the resources of this country are nowhere yet being mobilised so as to enable the peak of production to be reached and to enable the nation to make the war effort which the spirit of the people deserves. There is some short-circuiting somewhere, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has accepted a very serious responsibility in undertaking his present task, will see that the financial contribution which the people are making will not be short-circuited in industry as it has been up to the present time.
I remember speaking one Friday from this place when the Lord President of the Council was sitting on the Treasury Bench with the ex-Minister of Supply, and I concluded that speech by saying that no one in the House had been more critical of the Nazis than I had, and no Member had followed developments in Germany more closely than I had, but that while I had been critical of them, I

had never under-rated them. I said that I had observed, through following developments there, that never did they move against a group of people in their own country until they were convinced that they were capable of dealing with that group. First they took the trade unions, then the Social Democrats, then the Jews and then the Catholics. Each group thought, "We shall not be dealt with in the same way"; but the time arrived when they had driven underground all the aspirations of the common people and smashed the organisations which represented them.
Not until the monopolists in Germany, wielding their new political instrument, had dominated the whole life of Germany did they proceed to apply the same policy in the international sphere. They did not march into the Rhineland until they were convinced, through the work of their efficient espionage system, that Britain and France would not offer any resistance. If there were time, I could go on giving concrete illustrations showing how they marched next into Austria, then into Czecho-Slovakia and then into Poland. Never did they make a move against any country until they were convinced that they had overwhelming superiority against that country. I concluded that speech by asking the Government whether they were satisfied that the Germans had not been using the past eight months to obtain the same superiority over the Allies, and I have to stand here and confess that that fear proved to be true. We taught the world the use of tanks. Our men handled them in the last war in such a way that our Tank Corps was the admiration of the old German Army. That period of eight months was used in a way which has been revealed to us bitterly and to our cost. I will quote from a gentleman of whom more notice will be taken than of myself. He is a gentleman with whom I have disagreed during the past four years, because of his pro-German policy. Much to that man's credit, since the war he has thrown overboard that pro-German policy, and, in article after article on Sundays, Mr. J. L. Garvin has been proved correct in his analyses of the situation, as it has changed from week to week.
In the "Observer" of Sunday, 14th July, was an article from which I wish


to read a few extracts, which ought to go on to the records of this House in order that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen might read them, and that the words might shake them out of the complacent way in which many of them are still carrying on. I am getting a little disappointed. During the past five years I have stood here and made speech after speech upon the menace to this nation from German militarism. I remember, at a conference in Manchester four years ago, influential trade unionists who were by my side saying that I was taking a pessimistic view of the international situation, but the analyses which some of us made, and which determined the view which we formed, has been proved correct. Probably, when I say to-night that I am beginning to be disappointed, and when I quote from writers of this character, such views will be taken more notice of, after they have been brought out by men of this kind. Mr. Garvin wrote:
When will it come? The only sound view is that we may wake any morning and find that it has come. There are still some worthies"—
There are scores of them on that side of the Committee representing well-placed people in this country and who have had too easy a time during the past 20 years. That is really responsible for determining their outlook—
untaught by the lessons of the last 10 months, who relax at the faintest excuse into infatuated credulity. The storm, when it bursts, is bound to be as sudden as the invasions of Denmark and Norway, of Holland and Belgium and the devastating sweep on France. Do we expect the Nazis to give more warning in our case than in others? However short it may be, the present interval is another false lull. We know too well what was signified by our former and longer experience of the same kind. For eight months it acted like a dope on the democracies and their Government. Meanwhile, by contrast, the enemy undertook and carried out the most gigantic work of production and organisation that has ever been done in the same time.
The reason I quote that is that I am asking the Chancellor whether he is satisfied that, with his introduction of the war Budget, we are getting production from industry and are mobilising the resources of this nation in order to meet the gigantic productive efforts which are being carried out by the people to whom we are opposed. I say that we certainly are not. I hope that, after the Budget has passed through the House, the Government will

take early steps to mobilise the whole resources of the country.
During the past few weeks I have made several contributions on the question of the productivity of this country. I travelled with a man the other day, and he said to me: "One of the mistakes that we make in this country is that we put into jobs people who seem to know very little about them. We see people put into important positions in the aircraft industry and the Aircraft Ministry not because of their long experience in the aircraft industry, not because of their capacity, but because they happen to hold an influential position somewhere else and happen to be big people in Woolworth's or something like that." I heard the other day of a case of a man appointed to an important position in the Aircraft Ministry. On a legal question I would always give way to the knowledge of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite whom I respect because of his legal knowledge, but there are many men who I know have spent long years in industry, and I would never ask them to take second place to him if it came to a question of the organisation of aircraft and output in the supply industries. What applies to the right hon. and learned Gentleman applies more so to other people who have not the same standing in the legal profession, and therefore one can understand the irritation which is caused by appointments of this character.
I wish to appeal to the Government to review the payments which are made to our men serving in the Armed Forces. The position as it is cannot be supported by anyone on any platform in this country. There is no democracy about the payments that are being made to the men in the Armed Forces at the present time, and, therefore, although there is no time to deal with this question in a way in which one would like, I hope that the Government will agree that the time has arrived when there should be a review of the payments being made to the men and their dependants.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I would remind the hon. Member that this is a matter of raising money and not spending it.

Mr. Smith: I am hoping that the amount raised will be allocated to the men serving in the Armed Forces in a


different proportion from that in which it has been allocated in the past. Our people are making a greater effort than ever. The Chancellor, who has visited many workshops in this country during the past two years, knows that the spirit of the work people engaged in these industries is an inspiration to anyone who has had the privilege of visiting them. I could not have believed the great effort that is being made if I had not visited them and moved among them. We in the House of Commons have a responsibility on our shoulders. Most of us are relatively well placed, most of us have an assured income, but some of us remember the promises that were made after the last war, and I remember, as a young boy beginning to take an interest in things, saying that our people would never stand for a repetition of the insecurity of the past. Men working alongside me said that it would continue. I was proved wrong, and they were right, but I am now confident that the people in the future will not stand for a repetition of the past if we come through this war as we all hope we shall do. If millions can be raised in this way for the successful prosecution of the war, millions can be raised also to remove the economic insecurity of our people under which they have been living in the past. Therefore, we on this side will support the right hon. Gentleman in this Budget in principle. Perhaps several changes in detail are required, but our people are behind the prosecution of this war. It is they who are making the great effort. Therefore, we have a right to ask that in future steps shall be taken to remove the insecurity in which our people have lived.

10.10 p.m.

Captain Sir Ian Fraser: I cannot help feeling that it is fair to try to place the inevitable burdens on all classes, and I am glad to feel that in most parts of the House that view has been accepted. I am glad that the Chancellor has had the courage—for I think political courage was required—to ask middle-class people and wage-earners of the artisan class to make their contribution towards the Income Tax. For the first time for many years, the Income Tax to be paid by workers in the £4 to £8 or £9 a week groups has been raised. Quite apart from any question of class or wealth or property, it seems clear to me that

unless that vast group of people, numbering many millions, who are receiving increased wages at present are asked to make a really generous contribution out of those wages towards the cost of the war, it will be impossible to finance it. At the one end of the scale we have the well-to-do people. They have been found willing to make the most tremendous sacrifices from their incomes. I do not think that the hurt to the individual, the discouragement to the man of enterprise who has begun to earn big money, counts in anybody's mind, nor do I suggest that the Chancellor should have taken less from those with high incomes. He has done well to make them bear the burdens which he is placing upon them. But hon. Members should bear in mind that there are certain wealthy people who have very great obligations.
More particularly is this true in the countryside. There are people there with estates, who manage them not for their private benefit entirely but for the good of their people, and who render a very great service to the countryside in so doing. They have had to pay increased wages to their estate servants, but they do not get any help towards those increased wages; they do not receive, as the farmer does, higher prices for the goods produced. The rise in the cost of estate servants comes wholly, in many cases, out of estates which are already impoverished. I beg hon. Members not to think that I am in any sense pleading for the individual: the rights, the habits and comforts of all individuals must, if need he, go by the board; but I have seen cases where there is a real threat that damage will be done to the countryside if the taxation imposed on the land by taxing many owners of estates in this extreme way goes on without limit. But I welcome the proposals which the Chancellor has made. The rise in the taxes which the well-to-do are paying will make a contribution, although the House will note that it is not so great a contribution as might have been hoped for, towards raising the money; and, above all, it will enable us to feel, and to make the whole of our people feel, that there is no limit to which those who are wealthy are prepared to go to help the country at the present time.
At the other end of the scale come the people with very limited incomes, pen-


sioners, war pensioners, old people who live on small savings or small investments. It will be a very great burden to them to meet the new taxation of an in-direct kind. Nevertheless they are being helped by the Government in a variety of ways. There is provision for the exemption of certain necessary articles. There is for the very poor the increase in the allowances and benefits which are made through our various social services. There is the milk scheme. It is right that we should have regard to the burden which inflation and rising prices place upon those with fixed incomes, and I am glad to think that not only in the Budget, but in the policy of the Government generally, the needs of these classes are borne in mind.
Inflation, while it may for a time benefit the artisan class, and even the unskilled worker who is now receiving higher wages, does not at any time benefit the person living on a small fixed income, who suffers enormously. All through the last few weeks while I have been listening to speeches of Ministers I have been glad to notice that the very poor and the poor are in the minds of the Government even at this time and that they are making such provision as they can to help them, but between the poor and the very poor and the well-to-do there is the great mass of our people. Let it never be forgotten that the Surtax payer is an extraordinarily limited class. That does not give him any special rights, but it does limit the amount of money that can be had out of him. Even if you took away 20s. in the £, as I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, you would then raise only £70,000,000. Let the country not forget that fact. This is not the time for party arguments about rich and poor or class and class, and it is to me, as one who has been away from this House for a few years and has now come back, a source of great gratification to find that the old arguments that one used to hear so frequenly have taken a back seat because of the general view as to the necessity for unanimity in fighting this war. One could argue about Socialism and Capitalism, but, thank God, that is not wasting our time now. I believe frankly that we on these benches would prefer that this country should end up a Socialist democracy provided we win the war, and that Members opposite would

prefer that it ended up even a strengthened capitalist democracy provided we win the war.
The important thing is that we must win the war and maintain the conditions in which we are free to shape our social and economic policy as Parliament would wish, but in these circumstances let us face the facts. The money cannot be had from the rich or the well-to-do or the moderately well-off. Even if you took it all, you would not get enough. If, therefore, we are to win the war, the money must come from the great middle-class, from the artisan class and from the skilled and unskilled men who are now obtaining higher wages than those to which they have been accustomed. I say, "Good luck to them." They went through their time of bad trade and of unemployment, and it was they who suffered most. The well-to-do classes, the shareholders, the owners of property generally have a bit put by to help them over the evil times.
The working class have to rely on what is, by comparison with many countries, a generous provision in time of unemployment. But that is to them a great sacrifice and makes it difficult for them to obtain their homes and keep them together. Let us not forget the man who may, at the end of any week, find himself out of a job, with a family to provide for, rent to pay and obligations to meet. In spite of unemployment allowances he must be in a difficult position. But now he is in for a better time. There is no denying that there have been substantial rises in wages among skilled and unskilled workers and the cost of living has by no means gone up pro rata. In these circumstances they must make their contribution because, without it, the war cannot be won.
I make an appeal to my hon. Friends opposite. Let them aid the Government and the country, as so many have patriotically done, by asking all the great middle class, artisan class and the skilled and unskilled labour class, cheerfully to pay their substantial Income Tax. Only then can the money be found for the winning of this war. I appeal to them to take that message to their constituencies, as we on this side have been willing to take many messages which, judged by old political standards, may be unpopular with many of our supporters.
I want to say a few words about the Purchase Tax. I support the Chancellor in bringing it forward. Although I realise that it places burdens on many—and in so far as it places burdens on the very poor, I am extremely sorry that that should be so—I see no other way in which the Chancellor would get the whole community to make an increased and additional contribution. If people have no money they cannot spend but if they have any money, and do spend it, they will be making their contribution, pro rata, towards winning the war. Since the Chancellor cannot pick out exactly all the individuals who have a bit of money and are prepared to spend it, there may still be some left, after he has obtained his Income Tax, and this seems an admirable and effective way of getting it.
I have studied lately some of the various methods by which certain commodities may be taxed and have examined some of the measures in use for many years in some of our Dominions and other countries. In my judgment, for what it is worth, the Chancellor has chosen the best way of doing it. A retail tax is extraordinarily difficult; it is worked in some countries but has been abandoned in others. It would be peculiarly difficult in a time like the present. To have to account for every transaction over the counter would be an elaboration of effort and a waste of work which would be unjustifiable at the moment. Moreover, it would produce all sorts of anomalies. There are goods so trifling in their value that they have to be exempt and those of a little more value and you would get the ridiculous situation of buying one thing which was exempt, and buying two things which were taxed. That sounds trifling and ridiculous, but it has occurred in countries where this method of tax upon the sale of commodities has been done at the retail end.
I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has chosen the right method in applying it where the goods leave the wholesaler. He is making a smaller number of persons responsible to him for the collection—that is an advantage—and he is doing it at the point where it is very much easier to administer and collect. I give him my whole-hearted support in bringing the tax forward, because it is one of

the few methods of taxation still untried in this country which can raise large sums of money from all classes in proportion to their ability to spend. If they cannot spend, they will not pay. If they spend much or little, it does not much matter from the point of view of the Chancellor. As he said so rightly, it is the cash that he wants, and it is as useful to him to have 1,000 shillings as £50. I hope no private interest will cause hon. Members to oppose him. I was delighted at his estimate of £100,000,000 and hope it will be realised. Above all, I would urge him to have the courage not to give way on 101 small points in relation to whether this or that commodity should be included, because, if he does that, he will whittle away the great advantage the tax offers him.
I should like to add a word of thanks and congratulations in relation to the decision to compel employers to collect Income Tax by instalments. I think that is most sensible. Theoretically we all ought to be wise enough to save our money to pay our taxes, but many of us do not, and we find it a very great burden when the time comes to produce a large sum. It is a protection to the Treasury—that is the angle from which the Chancellor looks at it, whatever he may say—and it is a convenience to the individual. I think the Budget shows, by its general acceptance, that all classes are willing to make any sacrifice to pay for the war. I wish the Chancellor good luck with his job and hope all his taxes will bear the fruit that he has estimated to be possible.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Richards: I imagine that the Committee has listened with the deepest admiration to the speech we have just heard. The facility with which the various aspects of the Budget have been dealt with and the lucidity with which the opinions were expressed must have won the admiration of everyone. I think, too, we can congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the lucidity of his statement yesterday. He was labouring under a particular difficulty. He had to come in at half-time. It is difficult for a new Chancellor to step into the breach, particularly to introduce a third Budget in the course of 10 or 11 months. The statement was one of the most lucid we have ever listened to. At the same time the Budget is commonplace in its outstanding


features. Perhaps the Chancellor has no objection to that. The Budget had to be framed, as it was, within the framework of the existing fiscal system, and consequently, it does not present any very novel features. Even the Purchase Tax was not a surprise, for we had been told that something of the kind was likely to be introduced; and I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the very reasonable changes he has introduced into the working of that tax.
In the course of his statement, the Chancellor said that it was essential that everybody should contribute to the national effort. We are all agreed on that. What hon. Members on this side are rather concerned about is that even now it is quite possible that the poorer section of the community may be contributing—indeed, I am certain they are contributing—an amount more than proportionate to the wealth which they have as compared with other classes. For purposes of illustration, I would like to refer to some figures that were given by the Chancellor. He took the case of a man with £400 a year and two children, and pointed out that such a man will pay under the new taxation £15 16s. 8d. That will leave him a balance of £384. A man with £1,000 a year will pay £210, which will leave him with £790. I suggest that the test of equality of sacrifice is not the equality of the percentage paid, but the actual amount that is left after the payment of very considerable sums. The man who pays £210—a very big sum compared with the £15 16s. 8d. paid by the other man—will still have nearly £800 left. That is the argument that we ought to apply in every case. It is not a question of how much a particularly rich man is paying, but a question of his still having, after he has paid a very large proportion of his income, a very considerable income left. Whereas in the case of the poorer man—and this is particularly so if we take the indirect taxation as well—there is so much less left to him that it makes his sacrifice really much greater than that of the rich man. The fact is that there is no equality of sacrifice as long as there is no equality of income, and however we may juggle with the figures of the Budget, the inequality in incomes makes it impossible for us to arrive at anything like an equality in the sacrifice that is made by the contributors to taxes.
I should like now to refer to some of the figures that were given by the Chancellor and compare them with the figures which his predecessor gave last April. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said that the total amount which he required was £2,667,000,000, and of that sum, war expenditure amounted to £2,000,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor raised by taxation £1,234,000,000 of the £2,667,000,000, and borrowed £1,400,000,000. The Chancellor pointed out that the cost of the war has been steadily mounting; it was £40,000,000 a week in April, and since then it has reached £50,000,000 a week. Recently a figure of £57,000,000 was given, and the Chancellor has stabilised it at that figure. He assumes that the expenditure will continue at round about that figure, and no doubt he has reasons for coming to that conclusion. I wonder whether the figure will not soon be £60,000,000, and if we multiply that by 52, we have a total expenditure of over £3,000,000,000. If we add to the total expenditure the £667,000,000 for the service of the debt, it brings the amount to £3,787,000,000; that is to say that we are creeping towards an annual Budget of £4,000,000,000.
I do not know why the Chancellor should not have taken the higher figure, because it seems to me that we can take it for granted that the cost will mount, particularly if the calamity, which we all hope will not happen, takes place and we have to push the enemy back from our shores. Therefore, my first criticism is that the figure adopted by the Chancellor is £3,467,000,000. The figure I accept, on the basis of the £57,000,000, amounts to nearly £3,800,000,000; so there is a difference of £350,000,000. It means that the gap of which he spoke yesterday, and which he is attempting to fill, may be, and probably will be, £350,000,000 more than he suggested.
It seems to me that the Chancellor ought to be bolder, and that he ought to budget, as far as he can, for the maximum expenditure he can foresee within the next six months. He went on, in an attempt to please us to a certain extent, by pointing out that all may not have to be raised by taxation—there are certain mitigating circumstances and certain alternatives. He said, for example, that the Government possessed a considerable supply of


gold which had not been disposed of. It is very difficult for an outsider to know how much gold we really do possess. There is no longer any need, speaking generally, to have a great deal of gold in order to keep up the value of paper currency, but the tragic factor is that no Government has ever been found which is sufficiently honest to issue paper money without some very considerable backing of gold. Immediately the gold is reduced, the value of paper money is reduced, and we have inflation. No Government can be trusted, even a National Government of this description, to issue paper money without a very considerable backing of gold behind it. Consequently, I presume that the Chancellor would not like to get rid of the gold that he has reserved in the Bank for that purpose.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is the hon. Gentleman of the opinion that gold is at the present time behind the currency of this country?

Mr. Richards: I hope it is; otherwise, we are passing into the inflation which has been spoken of. A great deal of the gold has been retained in the Exchange Equalisation Fund. It is kept there for the purposes of foreign trade, and the Chancellor emphasised yesterday the importance of foreign trade as second only to that of the military requirements of the country. Consequently, I do not think he will rob that fund either. I was rather puzzled, therefore, when he said that we had a considerable amount of gold which we could dispose of. If we decide to get rid of any surplus gold that we have who is going to buy it? Most of the markets of the world are closed to us and we have only America which may possibly take some of the gold. My impression after the recent events in Europe is that America is saturated so far as any demand for gold is concerned. Our market for gold is, therefore, very limited, and I do not think we can build very much upon it. The Chancellor also stated that we have our foreign securities. The estimate of our foreign securities at the present time is problematical. An estimate has been made that before the last war we had between £3,000,000,000 and £4,000,000,000 worth, that by the end of the war we had sold some of them, and that at the beginning of the present war we had not more than

£1,000,000,000. They cannot be disposed of at once. They can be disposed of only gradually at the rate of £1,00,000,000 at a time. It will, therefore, take us a considerable time if we decide to convert our securities into money in order to buy commodities in the States and elsewhere. We can, then, neither get rid of our gold nor get rid of the securities that we have.
The Chancellor said that the total amount he wanted to find was £3,467,000,000 and he proposed to get by means of taxation £1,360,000,000. That is an addition of £126,000,000 on the taxation formerly levied. That amount is divided between £69,000,000 direct and £57,000,000 indirect taxation, which is a very fair division. It is difficult to assess what the relative burdens of direct and indirect taxation should be. The Chancellor has pointed out that that gap is gradually widening, and that he is raising by taxation a less proportion than his predecessor. That is rather a serious criticism. The figure in April was something like 46 per cent., leaving 54 per cent. to be borrowed, and the figure now is 39 per cent. by taxation, leaving 61 per cent. to be borrowed. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) was very optimistic about the probability of borrowing. I do not feel so optimistic myself. It is a big burden to throw on the machinery we have for borrowing and one naturally thinks of the introduction of some kind of compulsory savings. On the April Budget we had a discussion upon the scheme suggested by Mr. Keynes, but nothing was said on that score by the Chancellor yesterday.
He went on to say that it was estimated by certain people, though he did not say that he agreed with their figures, that the national income was somewhere about £5,000,000,000. I suggest that our war expenditure is creeping up towards £4,000,000,000, leaving £1,000,000,000 for expenditure outside war expenditure. This brings me to the crux of the question, as put quite fairly by the Chancellor yesterday. We are spending so much of our wealth on war efforts that the amount we have left to spend upon ordinary commodities is considerably reduced. That was the argument which the Chancellor used for introducing the Purchase Tax. I think something drastic must be done to get consumption to fit, so to speak. While people are getting more wages the


amount of the commodities produced for the community at large is steadily declining, and the Chancellor had to introduce the Purchase Tax partly for the purpose of reducing consumption, which is an absolute necessity, and partly to prevent prices from rising.
As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh, the objections we originally had to the Purchase Tax have been considerably modified by the generous attitude of the Chancellor towards many of them, but there is one aspect of the matter to which I should like to refer. I agree with those who have said that it is a pity that the Chancellor is taxing books. We must realise the importance of literature of all kinds to the community. We are fighting really for the right of man to express himself in his own way; it is an essential part of the struggle in which we are engaged. I would make a special appeal to the Chancellor for Welsh books. The position in regard to them is peculiar. After all, there are only about 500,000 exclusively Welsh-speaking Welshmen, and it is upon them that we depend for the production of the more characteristic Welsh books. The price of Welsh books is, as a rule, low compared with that of English books. It is rare to find a Welsh book priced at 3s. 6d. or 4s. 6d.; the usual price is between 2s. and 2s. 6d. When one increases the price, difficulty is created. One has to remember that many of the books are written by such people as quarrymen and miners, who are keeping alive the Welsh language, tradition and culture, which it is most important to do at the present. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do away with the tax altogether in the case of special books, particularly Welsh books. If he does so, his name will be honoured in Wales, and that will be sufficient reward to him for his generous attitude towards the problem.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: I cordially endorse the plea made by the hon. Member at the end of his speech. We ought to do everything we can to preserve these small cultures when there is such an endeavour to standardise all people and all things. If the tax is to be maintained, it should be with certain exceptions. Weekly reviews should be excepted. The hon. Member's appeal

should touch the hardest heart of a Chancellor of the Exchequer in favour of one of the small surviving cultures of Europe, and I hope my right hon. Friend will accede to that appeal. The hon. Member made a most interesting speech.
I would congratulate also my right hon. Friend on the admirable clearness of his exposition of the Budget yesterday. I felt that he gave us a clear and convincing diagnosis, and was a most excellent physician. But when I listened to the details of the prescription I felt it was not adequate to the diagnosis. This war Budget has two functions, the first being to reduce consumption and to switch national productive power from goods which are not essential to those which are essential and to the war effort. By taxation, and prohibition, if necessary, we must prevent people spending their money on goods which are not essential.
I thought I detected a contradiction between the beginning and the end of the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken. At the beginning, he took the case of people with £1,000 a year, whose taxation would be about £200, and that of a small-income man of £400, whose taxation would be about £16. We must remember that it is the limitation of consumption which is the aim, and 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the national consumption is, chiefly, by the wage-earners. Therefore, if you confine your heavy taxation to the large incomes you will not limit 80 per cent. of the national consumption, and we must limit 80 per cent. of the national consumption.
The second object of this Budget must be to raise sufficient by taxation and other means such as genuine loans and genuine savings to prevent inflation. The vital question before the Committee is whether this Budget will accomplish that object. The hon. Member who has just spoken dealt with that point at some length, and, while I do not agee with all of his points, I certainly agree with the conclusion at which he arrived. We have this gap of £2,100,000,000. He suggested it might be a gap of nearly £2,300,000,000 or £2,400,000,000, and he would be a rash individual who would say that the hon. Member is wrong. No one can tell. But there is that gap. I will take a lower figure—the figure taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, £2,100,000,000—and see how that can be bridged without inflation.
In the first place, there is the sale of gold. I disagree profoundly with the remark of the hon. Member who has just spoken, that no Government can be trusted to issue paper money without a considerable amount of gold behind it. I think that our issue to-day is quite independent of gold, but America is saturated with gold and I imagine that the United States would be very reluctant to take more than a very moderate amount of gold. Then there is the sale of securities. The hon. Gentleman gave figures; I do not know whether he referred only to dollar securities or genuine securities. Before the last war we had well over £4,000,000,000 worth of foreign investments. We sold chiefly our dollar securities. We still had most of our sterling securities. In rough figures, we had £1,000,000,000 in Australia, which we still have. We had vast investments in the Argentine, South Africa, New Zealand and so on. I agree with the point that was raised, that there is a limit to the amount which you can sell every year. I do not know what the limit is, but I

suggest that the sale of dollar securities and gold to the United States combined would not be more than £400,000,000 or at the most £500,000,000 a year. My right hon. Friend suggested utilising the American and Colonial balances here in London. That, as has already been pointed out; is only a very temporary scheme. Looking at it by and large, I feel that my right hon. Friend—

It being Eleven of the Clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Grimston.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.